Wikipedia

User talk:Dennis Brown/Archive 44

< User talk:Dennis Brown
Latest comment: 3 years ago by MediaWiki message delivery in topic Articles for Creation July 2021 Backlog Elimination Drive
Archive 40←Archive 42Archive 43Archive 44Archive 45Archive 46→Archive 48

Best wishes

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

You're good folk - I'm sorry so much of this has happened. Hope things IRL are much better than they are here for you. Cheers Dennis. — Ched :  ?  — 15:26, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

With the boom in the US marijuana business? I imagine things are going great for him ;-) - Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks guys, and yes, business is good, which is why I've been scarce this last year. I'm having to make time for this latest scuffle, but my gut tells me it's for naught, then I will have even more time for work. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:28, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Best to you Dennis. Thanks for WER and EotW. I hope I can do you proud.―Buster7 ☎ 19:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
  The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Thank you for everything. Have always appreciated you guidance over the years. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:13, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I appreciate the sentiment, Doc James but I'm about out of patience and this fire is growing exponentially. If we don't hear something soon, and hear something good (ie: WMF will let the community handle problems it can, and perhaps some sincere apologies for all the insensitivity that has gone on) then a lot of people are going to do more than temporarily hand in the bit. We will leave altogether. Not just the admin, crats, os and cus you've seen so far, but many others. I hate it, and it would increase the vulnerability of Wikipedia for at least a while, but like I said on my user page. " you have to give us the same respect you demand for yourselves.". Truth be told, I'm expecting either lots of words that say nothing or a thinly veiled "fuck off, we own the place", so I'm preparing to retire as it would appear that is the most likely scenario. 13 years and 61,000 edits, and right now, it seems like it was wasted time. So many of us feel this way Doc, I'm not sure you realize the scope of this. Maybe you do, but they damn sure don't. Or maybe they just don't care. If I had to bet, I'd pick the latter. They are flush with cash and that matters more than anything. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:21, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Io Saturnalia!

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  Io, Saturnalia!
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:25, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Be well at Christmas

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  Have a WikiChristmas and a PediaNewYear

Here's to the days when Wikipedia was poor and the content mattered. Me, I'm still poor, and to me the content still matters. I think the same is true of you. Come back. But even if you don't: Be well. Keep well. And have a lovely Christmas. SilkTork (talk) 17:40, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  Hi Dennis! Not sure if you're watching, but all the warmest wishes for this seasonal occasion, whichever you celebrate - or don't, while I swelter at 27℃ (80.6℉), and peace and prosperity for 2020. Seriously hoping that you'll join me for a cool beer in Bangkok in August when it will be even hotter!
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:49, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

                                                 Happy holidays

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Happy New Year!
 
Dennis Brown,
Have a great 2020 and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

 

   – 2020 is a leap year – news article.
   – Background color is Classic Blue (#0F4C81), Pantone's 2020 Color of the year

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2020}} to user talk pages.

– North America1000 21:52, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2020

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2019).

  Guideline and policy news

  Arbitration

  • The fourth case on Palestine-Israel articles was closed. The case consolidated all previous remedies under one heading, which should make them easier to understand, apply, and enforce. In particular, the distinction between "primary articles" and "related content" has been clarified, with the former being the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted rather than reasonably construed.
  • Following the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Beeblebrox, Bradv, Casliber, David Fuchs, DGG, KrakatoaKatie, Maxim, Newyorkbrad, SoWhy, Worm That Turned, Xeno.

  Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Welcome back!

Latest comment: 4 years ago8 comments8 people in discussion

So nice to see your datestamp. That you're willing to hold the mop is great for everybody. BusterD (talk) 02:33, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Your return is much appreciated and gets the week off to a nice start. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 02:35, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
  The Original Barnstar
Denis I have been a supporter of Wikipedia for years ( small financial contributions) yesterday I found I was on there myself - someone has put up a false and malicious page about me and I really can't see how to get it resolved. I joined so I could edit what had been said and take out the false stuff, then got ONE first and final warning - I am worried the false things said about me will remain... I have done a admin help me on my talk page - but this is all new to me and I wondered if you would help point me in the right direction..I don't want to get blocked- my page is clearly not neutral and the only citations are tabloid newspaper articles written as a result of one person writing their OPINION to the newspaper- no substance at all. Peace11111 (talk) 20:32, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • It looks a bit fishy to me, like padding it up with all the see also remarks, and I'm not sure about the reliability of the sources. The first thing you need to do is stop editing the article. Reverting back and forth is going to get you blocked. I'm barely part time here, after stopping being an admin for some time, so I'm rusty, but a good place to start is to email info-en-q@wikimedia.org to get an experienced editor to help you. This could take a long time, and I'm very aware of the fact that I simply don't have enough time to deal with it properly due some extraordinary family obligations right now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:45, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

THANK YOU DENNIS I wish you well with those obligations x — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peace11111 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2020

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2020).

  Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at Wikipedia:Partial blocks.
  • The request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input. No proposed process received consensus.

  Technical news

  • Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: {{uw-pblock}}.
  • When trying to move a page, if the _target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the _target title. [1]

  Arbitration

  • Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.

  Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

glad

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Allow we to join the chorus of welcome backs. -- Deepfriedokra 06:16, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I C U

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Welcome back, Dennis! —tim //// Carrite (talk) 18:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Likewise :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:09, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Hey Dennis, I completely understand the missing glitter, and I share your view of a less enchanting wiki. Still, it is good to see you around. You have a very logical mind, you're compassionate towards people, able to look at both sides of an argument without bias, ... it's the long way around the barn, but in short: You're a good person, and that's not easy to find in this world today. It is good to see you commenting. I hope real life is treating you well. — Ched (talk) 12:02, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Global Records

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'm not sure that you are correct here. Anyone other that the article creator can remove a speedy deletion tag, so it is not an administrator action. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

  • I could, but being an admin, it is better than I err on the side of caution and not give the appearance that it was an admin decision. I know it would get removed regardless and it was a totally asinine tag, but honestly, I just didn't want to deal with the potential drama, from anyone, justified or not. I ended up blocking the IP that added it, not for that tag, but for tag bombing a bunch of articles. I discovered they have a history of causing problems. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:00, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2020

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2020).

  Guideline and policy news

  • Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops must not undo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather than should not.
  • A request for comment confirmed that sandboxes of established but inactive editors may not be blanked due solely to inactivity.

  Technical news

  • Following a discussion, Twinkle's default CSD behavior will soon change, most likely this week. After the change, Twinkle will default to "tagging mode" if there is no CSD tag present, and default to "deletion mode" if there is a CSD tag present. You will be able to always default to "deletion mode" (the current behavior) using your Twinkle preferences.

  Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Awesome!

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'd missed that you came back. So glad to see it. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  Cheers Dennis! Drmies (talk) 21:18, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2020

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2020).

  Guideline and policy news

  • There is an ongoing request for comment to streamline the source deprecation and blacklisting process.

  Technical news

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous

  • The WMF has begun a pilot report of the pages most visited through various social media platforms to help with anti-vandalism and anti-disinformation efforts. The report is updated daily and will be available through the end of May.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

RE "Cut-paste moves"

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I left the notice on the user's talk page, as you requested, and they not only removed it, but they're continuing to be highly disruptive in their editing. This user has a long-standing history of this behaviour, and surely this is not acceptable per Wikipedia's standards. livelikemusic talk! 12:42, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Post that in the ANI thread. If they removed it, that means they read it. I'm tied up, but I don't think it will be hard to find an admin who will read and block them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:27, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  Wishing Dennis Brown a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Bobherry Talk Edits 02:02, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Happy Adminship Anniversary!
 

Have a very Brown happy adminship anniversary on your special day!

Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:14, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2020

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2020).

 

  Administrator changes

  Gnangarra • Kaisershatner • Malcolmxl5

  CheckUser changes

  Callanecc

  Oversight changes

  HJ Mitchell

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Precious
 
Eight years!

Anniversaries ... today is the birthday of Claudio Monteverdi and Hans Herbert Jöris, did you know? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2020

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2020).

 

  Administrator changes

  CaptainEek • Creffett • Cwmhiraeth
  Anna Frodesiak • Buckshot06 • Ronhjones • SQL

  CheckUser changes

  SQL

  Guideline and policy news

  Arbitration

  • A motion was passed to enact a 500/30 restriction on articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Article talk pages where disruption occurs may also be managed with the stated restriction.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

request to restore deleted page

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I was looking through some old tennis pages when I noticed an inconsistency between the AFD result at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Tianjin Health Industry Park – Doubles and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Aberto de São Paulo – Doubles. You closed the former as Delete, but the latter (which had more participation and thus appears to be the stronger consensus) closed as Keep. Could you therefore please restore 2014 Tianjin Health Industry Park – Men's Doubles? Alternatively, if you disagree with my interpretation of the 2 AFDs, could you create a copy in my userspace for further improvement please? Iffy★Chat -- 23:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

  • The problem I have is that the article was a fork of 2014 Tianjin Health Industry Park, which didn't really need forking since the the article was (and still is) not very large. I don't understand why the information can't simply be put into the main article. As far as one article being deleted and one being kept (while everyone was actually saying to merge), you can't really compare articles that way, as they weren't for the same event. WP:WAX covers this, although I'm betting you are already familiar. I don't feel comfortable just undeleting it unilaterally, since the community said to delete it. Do you have some sourcing that is new since the article was deleted? If so, WP:REFUND would be the right venue. I wouldn't imagine they would without significant sources, but I won't protest either way. I just closed it, I have no opinion on the validity of the article. Honestly, I would go back to the main article, build up the doubles section first, with rock solid sourcing, then go to refund with the goal of splitting it over the previous deleted article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:36, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Revert

Latest comment: 4 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

I said a bunch of times on the notice board I removed the sourcing before I did the AfD or thought about doing it. Can you point to anywhere that says it's cool to restore an AfD to a previous state before it was opened? I know you can edit an article during an AfD, but I'm pretty sure you can't revert edits that happened before it was opened to add sourcing to it. IMO, the proper thing to do would have been to just copy the sources over to the AfD. Which wouldn't have caused the bad information I was removing to be put back in the article. I would have been fine with that. The standards about article content quality don't suddenly stop once an AfD is opened though. BTW, I'm only asking because I really don't see what the problem was and it seems like you know this stuff better then I do. So, don't take the message the wrong way ;) --Adamant1 (talk) 18:58, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

  • You can edit any article at AFD. If you edit it in a way that removed reliable sources, whether it is before or during, it is going to look like bad faith and should not be done. That is pretty basic etiquette at Wikipedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:06, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
It makes sense not to remove to reliable sources during an AfD, but for one they weren't reliable and I thought it would have been weird to revert my earlier edit when I did decide to do the AfD so they would be added back. The problem was, I deleted them because they weren't reliable, went looking for more was like "oh, wait, this probably isn't a notable subject after all like I thought it was" because I couldn't find any. So, an AfD seemed like the next best course of action over just leaving a badly sourced stub article. I don't generally think going back through edit histories of articles to find sources people might have removed before doing an AfD is a good approach to doing one. There should be a presumption of good faith that they were removed for a reason and the AfD should be based on the articles current state. I don't see why it would be any different just because I was the last person that edited it. Maybe that "looked" bad faith, but it wasn't. Especially since I was planning on copying the sources I removed to the AfD. I don't think people can rightly edit war over how they think things "look" either. Or anyone could revert anyone on a whim over pretty anything. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
What would have been the better thing to do when I had already gotten rid of the un-reliable sources and couldn't find anymore, leave a half gimped badly sourced stub article because of how things might be perceived or follow the guidelines and do an AfD? --Adamant1 (talk) 00:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Don't bother trying to play games with me, you are wasting your time, and mine. If you don't get the point, then it is because you don't want to. Go away. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 08:20, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
What's a game about asking what you think the best way to deal with the situation would have been? I genuinely don't know and would like to so a similar thing doesn't happen again and you posted on the message board. So I thought you'd know. I don't get what's wrong about that. Sorry about bothering you with it though, I guess. maybe next time don't post a message on the admin board if your not willing to discuss it. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
How about next time, you LEAVE it on the admin board? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
OK. Next time I will. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2020

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2020).

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

As a reaction to the entire Fram situation, I was so dishearted that I had to take a break. Now that I am back to gnoming, I see that you have returned, and I am so pleased. Since my earliest edits (2016?), I have had great respect for your opinions. I have been reading through the ANI case regarding WMF/W?F and agree with your observations, etc.

Just wanted to say that I appreciate you and thank you very much for your hard work and service to WP and WP editors. Sincerely, Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 21:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

No, Dennis, don't hold your breath. My demise as an admin was largely masterminded by an arbitrator claiming - among other things - I had said things about the WMF during my tenure as E-in-C of The Signpost that I hadn't, and accusing me of being a misogynist which I'm not. I couldn't agree more with the comments on your user page, but don't kid yourself that Arbcom is, in it's own way, any less corrupt. And although John from Idegon has hit the nail on the head in no uncertain terms, getting ridiculously blocked for it demonstrates just what a sad and unfriendly space both Wikipedia and its so called WMF has become.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:41, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2020

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2020).

 

  Administrator changes

  Red Phoenix
  Euryalus • SQL
  Jujutacular • Monty845 • Rettetast • Madchester

  Oversight changes

  GB fan
  Keegan • Opabinia regalis • Premeditated Chaos

  Guideline and policy news

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Deletion review for Cup Foods

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have asked for a deletion review of Cup Foods. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 19:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

See also ANI re: the user you blocked

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

[2]. Thank you, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:38, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Happy First Edit Day!
 

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:20, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2020).

 

  Administrator changes

  Eddie891
  Angela • Jcw69 • Just Chilling • Philg88 • Viajero

  CheckUser changes

  SQL

  Guideline and policy news

  Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2020).

 

  Administrator changes

  Ajpolino • LuK3
  Jackmcbarn
  Ad Orientem • Harej • Lid • Lomn • Mentoz86 • Oliver Pereira • XJaM
  There'sNoTime → TheresNoTime

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Edit requests unhelpful?

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Dennis, I was sincerely surprised by the concerns you expressed over posting edit requests on Talk:White House COVID-19 outbreak. I legitimately believed these edit requests would be helpful. If I note ways to improve the article, what do you think would be the best course of action for me to take to help the project, if not post those requests to talk. Feoffer (talk) 13:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  Dennis, it is so good to see you around again. Now, the Alabama game is about to start, so close the laptop, get a beer, and root for the Tide. Drmies (talk) 23:53, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Aziz Ansari - SPECIFICO

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Mr. Brown, after your close of the AE case I filed against User:SPECIFICO, and after having stepped away from editing the main page during the dispute since the 16th, I reverted the disputed changes at Aziz Ansari which I had described. I just made the same edit summary I would have made as though the AE case didn't happen (referencing the talk page where I cite policy-based objections).[3] I feel that SPECIFICO's edit[4] where they falsely claim new consensus is more of the same brazenly disruptive behavior. What do you recommend I do from here? I would like the status quo ante restored before we figure out what needs an RfC. From there maybe a sanction on the section would make sense, if that is a possibility. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand. If an editor violates AE sanctions by disrupting the consensus building process, the appropriate action is to tolerate that behavior and attempt to work around it? I'm not sure how to even do that, considering they made a rewrite of the whole section beyond what the initial weeks-long dispute was about, the dispute is being misrepresented, and the RfC would have to be over an entire rewrite with nuanced POV and V problems. Isn't the simple solution to just adhere to policy? Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:47, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm not going to rehash the entire case on my talk page. Several admin opined in that discussion, no one has an appetite to enact harsh sanctions. End of story.  Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:04, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Ok, but this more disruptive behavior beyond the previous case, so I guess it needs a new AE case. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

S.B. in Margate

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

user:S.B. in Margate is abusing her talkpage. CLCStudent (talk) 12:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

It is good

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

to see you around. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2020

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2020).

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Opine vs defend

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Just making sure we're on the same page, re: this statement in your close: There was a sanction, ANI allowed the community to opine on it and there was a rough consensus that a sanction was needed, and that was just a few days ago. Is it correct to assume that you were aware the t-ban had been imposed prior to the editor's first statement of defense - either because they were not yet aware the case had been opened or were completely taken by surprise? I'm of the mind that it makes a huge difference. This diff lead to what some perceive to be an ambush-style sanctioning, as does this diff from a much older ARCA case, both occurring before the t-banned editor was properly afforded the opportunity to defend themselves in a clear state of mind. In the latter case, an arb properly questioned the action. Please understand that my focus here has nothing to do with the merits of either case; rather, it is strictly procedural because such an action tends to catch an editor offguard and throws them into a state of disarray, which is the primary purpose of an ambush, is it not? It creates a chilling effect and provokes a wide-range of emotions that are not necessarily representative of an editor's normal state of mind had a different approach been taken that allowed them time to regain their composure and properly prepare. Another advantage to ambushing an editor under the umbrella of DS-AE is to ensure that whatever the acting admin determines, at their sole discretion, to be the proper action cannot be overturned by another admin per AE procedures; therefore, making it highly doubtful that the action will be challenged at the start of the case because either too few editors/admins understand how DS-AE works, or simply refuse to get involved in highly controversial topic areas. It also eliminates the potential for the community to dismiss it completely, or be more lenient. It clearly opens the door to WP:POV creep and/or actions motivated by prejudice, inadvertent or otherwise, and in doing so, provides an oblique way to control the narrative in a given topic area. If you get a chance and are of the mind to do so, please read the arb candidate responses to my questions about this topic. I included this wikilink for the sake of convenience. If you believe any of the editors mentioned in any of the diffs need to be pinged, despite this discussion being strictly about the procedure and not anyone in particular, I will leave that to your discretion as it appears there may be a related customized sanction, which involves another much broader topic in my 2 questions to the arb candidates. Atsme 💬 📧 14:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  • tldr, but the nut of it is that I know the chronology, which is reflected in my comments, ie: separate events, with ANI confirming the sanction. The Community outranks a bunch of admin at AE, that was my point. Admin shouldn't change what was decided (reviewed, whatever) by the Community right after the fact. Admin serve under the authority of community, we aren't allowed to disregard and overrule the Community. Once time has passed, we can consider appeals on behalf of the Community. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

RfB

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I can understand your reluctance to do so, but I wish you'd run. There's nothing wrong with the current group, but adding another with your insight and empathy would be a good thing. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Thats kind of you to say, and I agree we have good Crats and it wouldn't hurt to have a few more, but the threshold is pretty high, and I've been an admin so long, I can envision a lot of blowback from previously blocked editors. I was encouraged to run early in my admin career for that reason, before the list gets too long. Plus, I'm pretty outspoken in regards to the Foundation, and that is going to irk a few. I'm not at all confident I would come close to passing. Which is fine, I'm happy where I am. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:13, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Opine vs defend

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Just making sure we're on the same page, re: this statement in your close: There was a sanction, ANI allowed the community to opine on it and there was a rough consensus that a sanction was needed, and that was just a few days ago. Is it correct to assume that you were aware the t-ban had been imposed prior to the editor's first statement of defense - either because they were not yet aware the case had been opened or were completely taken by surprise? I'm of the mind that it makes a huge difference. This diff lead to what some perceive to be an ambush-style sanctioning, as does this diff from a much older ARCA case, both occurring before the t-banned editor was properly afforded the opportunity to defend themselves in a clear state of mind. In the latter case, an arb properly questioned the action. Please understand that my focus here has nothing to do with the merits of either case; rather, it is strictly procedural because such an action tends to catch an editor offguard and throws them into a state of disarray, which is the primary purpose of an ambush, is it not? It creates a chilling effect and provokes a wide-range of emotions that are not necessarily representative of an editor's normal state of mind had a different approach been taken that allowed them time to regain their composure and properly prepare. Another advantage to ambushing an editor under the umbrella of DS-AE is to ensure that whatever the acting admin determines, at their sole discretion, to be the proper action cannot be overturned by another admin per AE procedures; therefore, making it highly doubtful that the action will be challenged at the start of the case because either too few editors/admins understand how DS-AE works, or simply refuse to get involved in highly controversial topic areas. It also eliminates the potential for the community to dismiss it completely, or be more lenient. It clearly opens the door to WP:POV creep and/or actions motivated by prejudice, inadvertent or otherwise, and in doing so, provides an oblique way to control the narrative in a given topic area. If you get a chance and are of the mind to do so, please read the arb candidate responses to my questions about this topic. I included this wikilink for the sake of convenience. If you believe any of the editors mentioned in any of the diffs need to be pinged, despite this discussion being strictly about the procedure and not anyone in particular, I will leave that to your discretion as it appears there may be a related customized sanction, which involves another much broader topic in my 2 questions to the arb candidates. Atsme 💬 📧 14:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  • tldr, but the nut of it is that I know the chronology, which is reflected in my comments, ie: separate events, with ANI confirming the sanction. The Community outranks a bunch of admin at AE, that was my point. Admin shouldn't change what was decided (reviewed, whatever) by the Community right after the fact. Admin serve under the authority of community, we aren't allowed to disregard and overrule the Community. Once time has passed, we can consider appeals on behalf of the Community. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2020

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2020).

 

  Administrator changes

  Andrwsc • Anetode • GoldenRing • JzG • LinguistAtLarge • Nehrams2020

  Interface administrator changes

  Izno

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Natalis soli invicto!

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  Natalis soli invicto!
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:37, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2021

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2020).

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Also...

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Good to see your name back about the place. WormTT(talk) 09:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2021

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Seconding Worm's (archived) comment

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Glad to see you around ... let me know if I can help with anything. - Dank (push to talk) 15:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Fixed some stuff in one of your talk page archives

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi! Just wanted to let you know I removed some talk-page-header-fluff that you (accidentally?) copied over to one of your archives ([5]). It caused the archive to show up on Category:Pages where archive parameter is not a subpage. --rchard2scout (talk) 13:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2021

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

 

  Administrator changes

  TJMSmith
  Boing! said Zebedee • Hiberniantears • Lear's Fool • Only • WGFinley

  Interface administrator changes

  AmandaNP

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  • When blocking an IPv6 address with Twinkle, there is now a checkbox with the option to just block the /64 range. When doing so, you can still leave a block template on the initial, single IP address' talkpage.
  • When protecting a page with Twinkle, you can now add a note if doing so was in response to a request at WP:RfPP, and even link to the specific revision.
  • There have been a number of reported issues with Pending Changes. Most problems setting protection appear to have been resolved (phab:T273317) but other issues with autoaccepting edits persist (phab:T275322).

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Clarify your AE comment

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello Dennis, glad you're back! You called for a CU here, but a check usually needs a prior suspicion of who is a sock of who. Need the details. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:29, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

  • EdJohnston, I didn't formally ask for one, but this is obviously not a new user and wanted a CU to at least observe what I was seeing. I have no idea who they are a sock of, and like most quacking cases, it isn't possible to definitively link him with so few edits. Of course, that won't stop me from blocking him as a "sock of someone" if I feel that is what is merited, it is just good to have a CU take a look and see what else falls through the cracks. If a CU can't, then I will play the hand I'm dealt. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

BN

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

It was intentional. I figured there would be a 99% chance that Xeno wouldn't get mad, and a 62% chance he would find it funny. Both numbers slightly lower, but not too much lower, for other editors. Hopefully I didn't misjudge those numbers for other people. I bet I'm right about Xeno, though. Good to see you around again. Haven't seen your name pop up on my watchlist in quite some time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:08, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

  • I figured there was likely intentional, but I hate to assume. To be honest, would have been even more humorous if it had been an accident. We've all done it a time or two. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Yes, I finally had to install the script everyone is talking about, I was doing it all the time. And I checked your contribs and it looks like you've been back quite a while, I guess we just haven't crossed paths for some reason. Hope all is well with you and yours. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:13, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
      • Thanks. I've kept a lower profile. Tired of drama and the business is really busy, so I avoid long draw out processes. Mainly I gnome, and if I see a backlog, will clean up a bit. Work is the main thing, as we've kind of invented a couple of markets that are taking off, ie: UVB for cannabis (THC boosting), and tanning pigs for show. Yes, that's a real thing. It's a weird way to make a living but UV is what I've done for decades. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
        • The fact that people use UV to tan their pigs for show makes me much happier than is probably rational. If you're just supplying the equipment for an existing need, more power to you. If you're the one who actually invented the market for that: you're a genius. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
          • I'm no genius, just an entrepreneur with a healthy interest in science. A guy came to me and wanted to know if it could be done, I created a lamp for it, he now builds fixtures and I actually sell more pig tanning lamps than cannabis lamps. I was the first to create a lamp specifically for triggering the UVR8 protein in cannabis, to boost trichomes and THC, we are in our 4th generation now, and working with Texas A&M and other universities, who are testing the effect of UV (UVR8) in several crops, since so much is now grown in greenhouses. It's actually a slog, creating markets is harder than creating products for existing markets, because people don't know they need what you sell, so it's slow going. Still, it's better than a real job. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:35, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Common Language

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

FYI, it's very commonly used. Please look at the main page on the topic. It's mentioned immediately. Thanks. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:13, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and you've been here long enough to know better about this language. Don't condescend to me. I don't like your disrespectful attitude. I won't be responding further.TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Office actions

So me making improvements to the information page means I'm an issue? Is this really how you people treat IP addresses who are actually trying to help?

Just to say

Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

I felt attacked because on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FitGirl your comment "You might be bludgeoning just a bit." was already an accusation of bludgeoning (even if only "might just a bit"), which I still disagree with. Had it been worded more like "you're commenting a lot, be careful to avoid entering bludgeoning territory" or something like that, it would have better achieved the intention I assume you had.

It would still be helpful if you added a comment to explain why you believe the article is still a BLP or adjust the wording of your vote. I didn't comment on your vote (you can vote anything you want), I commented on the article being called a BLP when it no longer was one. If you had voted "Keep, adequately sourced BLP" I would have responded with the exact same comment. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 00:08, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

  • AFD requires a thick skin, and I'm not prone to sugar coat it for established editors. I started the essay WP:Bludgeon some 13 years ago because running commentary is destructive to forming consensus and actually discourages others from joining in. Sometimes it is best to assume the closing admin is capable of sorting it out, and just let others be "wrong". Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:19, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
    And Alexis Jazz, don't take it personal. Us old men will point our finger and bark a bit, but it isn't a comment on your character or value as an editor. It was just a comment on your actions on that one page. Responding to most everyone in a discussion is always a bad idea. The essay does cover that aspect as well. You're a good enough editor you don't need to do that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:47, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
    Thank you. The closing admin is one thing, but in my experience if more than one editor makes a statement in a discussion that is not accurate (anymore) without being questioned, some other commenters/voters will read those comments as fact. (and vote accordingly) In this case, it's just unlucky that several early comments contained a unique inaccuracy. I have rarely seen such a thing happening before. Actually, this might be the first time. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 11:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
    As the essay recommends, it is better to wait, then make ONE comment as a stand alone comment. Then it doesn't come across as nitpicking each comment. AFD is a fairly binary discussion, making it prone to heated arguments, which is why it's helpful to avoid multiple threads of disagreement. A couple of threads isn't a problem, but if you are replying to every !vote that disagrees with you, the closing admin is more likely to gloss over your arguments, to be honest. If your argument is strong, you won't need to make it more than once or twice. I've commented in over 2300 AFDs and closed around 240 over the last 15 years. That doesn't make me an "expert", but there is very little I haven't seen there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
    My arguments weren't for the closing admin and I didn't make any argument more than once or twice. Bundling responses does nothing but diminish readability. Don't boast with your stats, it doesn't inspire confidence. More likely does the opposite as in general it is what people tend to do when trying to defend an undefendable position. Newbies can be brilliant and veterans can be idiots. And I've been both. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 08:30, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
    You're entitled to your opinion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Formatting of discussion thread comments

Latest comment: 3 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

Regarding the second comment in this edit: I imagine you've come across/seen others refer to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility § Lists and Help:Talk pages § Indentation and their guidance on formatting discussion threads. (RexxS has written an essay, Wikipedia:Colons and asterisks that discusses the issue along with examples of the underlying HTML, and I have written my own essay, User:Isaacl/On wikitext list markup.) Your edit introduced two nested unbulleted list items after a bulleted list item, which, combined with the comment that was added later immediately below yours, causes screen readers to make four extra list start/end announcements, compared if you had used *:. I hope you will consider following the guidance, as many would appreciate it; thanks! isaacl (talk) 16:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Honestly, I see so many styles being used and never really read up on it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:14, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
    Perhaps read what RexxS wrote. Miss him. Nice to see you again! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
    The nutshell summary (which the guidance pages and essays cover): if you're the first person replying to a comment, copy the same prefix and append the character of your choice (I prefer : so I can reserve bulleted and numbered lists for use within a comment, but some like to mix in *). If you're not the first person to reply, find the last reply that matches the nesting level of your reply, and copy its prefix. This minimizes changes to list styles, thus reducing announcements by screen readers. List markup isn't a great fit for threaded conversation, but it's where we are (it resembles the old-school visual indent on Usenet and plaintext email, both in the wikitext and the displayed output). isaacl (talk) 19:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
    That's basically what I do, I just reversed the * and the : accidentally. Didn't realize it was as detrimental as it is to make that mistake. I've made several minor mistakes as of late, RL is quite demanding right now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
    (talk page stalker) Sorry to barge in on this ... didn't the WMF have a product a few years ago that was going to solve all of these problems and make talk pages more like forum discussion boards? Anybody know what happened to that? I'm sure we (the community) threw a fit, but maybe we need something a little more like that. Anyway, also hi to everyone in this thread ... nice to see you're all still here. (Didn't exactly plan a three or four year hiatus; it just kind of happened. While much seems to have changed, much else seems almost exactly the same haha.) Go Phightins! 23:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
    Are you referring to Wikipedia:Flow (also called structured discussions)? It has various shortcomings which in theory could be addressed, but as with many initiatives, the mismatch with expectations of long-time editors meant it was hard to get support to continue development, and so it's stopped now. Currently ongoing is the Wikipedia:Talk pages project, which has released a reply tool in beta, and is (will be?) working on notifications for changes to individual sections of pages. isaacl (talk) 00:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
    Isaacl, Yes! Flow—I knew it had a name. Yes, the reply tool is definitely the best development in the time I was away, it appears. Alas. Go Phightins! 00:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
    Yeah, it's unfortunate that enabling accessibility means paying really close attention to tiny details such as sequences of prefixed characters and stray blank lines between list items (they don't change the visual output, but they cause extra list end/start announcements). The reply tool will help with that, for those who adopt it. isaacl (talk) 00:29, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Question about Wikipedia:No personal attacks

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hey Dennis Brown. On a AE discussion yesterday you made a comment about me needing to stop personal attacks. In the past (Pre t-ban even), I was told about personal attacks. I read the section about what is a personal attack and I am extremely confused on the personal attack that I made during the AE discussion. Could you possibly tell me what I did so I don't do it ever again? In my mind, I stated a fact, but every time I said it, it was called out as a personal attack, so I really don't understand why it is a personal attack. Thank you for any help/guidance that you can give. Elijahandskip (talk) 12:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

  • For starters, you call Fram a liar. Avoiding personal attacks is pretty easy. Never talk about the person, always talk about the edit. ie: Don't say "that was a stupid thing to put in the article" you say "I think it was a mistake to add that because *reason 1* and *reason 2*". Don't make things personal. It's fine to attack an idea, but not a person. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Ok. Thank makes a lot of sense. Thank you for that! Elijahandskip (talk) 16:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Heads-up

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Just a heads-up but Barkeep is different from me, User:Barkeep49. In your last ping at arbcom I think you pinged the wrong one (something that I am guessing happens a fair amount) and so here's a friendly heads-up on that. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

  • I caught that about 10 seconds after I posted that, but there wasn't a way to unping you. Sorry about that. Dennis Brown - 2¢

Administrators' newsletter – April 2021

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

 

  Administrator changes

  Alexandria • Happyme22 • RexxS

  Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a has been deprecated; it covered immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
  • Following a request for comment, page movers were granted the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's _target.

  Technical news

  • When you move a page that many editors have on their watchlist the history can be split and it might also not be possible to move it again for a while. This is because of a job queue problem. (T278350)
  • Code to support some very old web browsers is being removed. This could cause issues in those browsers. (T277803)

  Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

You've got mail

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Hello, Dennis Brown. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. TrottieTrue (talk) 21:16, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Note

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Saw this: [6]

Just wanted to make you aware that Gilabrand also violated her topic ban in 2019:[7] and 4 months ago:[8] and both flew under the radar. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Nice

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

It's really a pleasure to see your name showing up more frequently in various discussions Dennis. I've always greatly appreciated the balance and reason you bring to a thread. — Ched (talk) 19:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Thanks Ched. Can't make promises, but I'm trying to get more done around here. Still have a bad taste in my mouth over the Foundation (and now they are trying to force their Universal Code of Conduct on us), but I love the community, the editors and the readers, so I will try. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:38, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Hey - every little bit helps. I suspect that our views pretty much align in regards to the Foundation, and the UCoC. The UCoC may look good on paper, but in practice I suspect it would only cause more strife. It's hard enough to get East-Coast USA and West-Coast USA to agree on conduct matters. Finding a way for a global agreement on conduct is downright laughable. I appreciate the effort, but I think it's a very foolish thing to move forward with. Best, — Ched (talk) 09:57, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
East Coast–West Coast hip hop rivalry led to at least two rappers being shot dead, so yeah. In theory, there are some universal ideas of "good conduct" between the many different cultures of the world, but putting that in writing is tricky and loaded with pitfalls, particularly for the Foundation, who still can't develop world class tools or search features. Most of them aren't even regular editors, so I fail to see how they will grasp the concept except from an outsider's, inexperienced viewpoint....to be forced upon us. They do so many extraneous things, it feels like the "encyclopedia" is the least important part of their business. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:06, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Dennis!

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Just swinging by to say hi! Had some great times editing with you! Ryan Vesey 03:15, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Happy Adminship Anniversary!
 

Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day!

Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:31, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Re. the thread you closed at AE

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Now at ANI so if you wish to put in your two cents there... Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:01, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Probably need to pass since I closed in at AE. I have faith the community is capable of reviewing the situation. I actually didn't, except to see it needed to go to ANI, and do the procedural close. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

AN discussion

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Just wanted to let you know a AN discussion you commented on has been archived with no result. Although the edit was minor, the user had already been blocked and warned not to test WP:BROADLY and went on to make another edit in the same topic ban area after I created the discussion. --Steverci (talk) 00:16, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a billion.

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thank u very much Dennis!

Thank U

Thank u very much Dennis, I tried to fix this as you suggested Oreste Crisostomi (with the help of DragonflySixtyseven)... Please let me know if now it's ok. Thanks a million. Verdena900

Welcome back

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Here's another blast from the past -- you helped me out with dealing with some idiots, years ago -- great to see you back. Be well. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 17:15, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

A ha!

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Only four are yours =) –xenotalk 02:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I also had four. –xenotalk 02:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Found 4 more (lots more by me, woops). –xenotalk 03:15, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I was young and foolish, what can I say ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Fixed them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:26, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks!!!

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Verdena900 (talk) 14:31, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

RevDel request

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, sorry to bother you. Can you please revdel 1, 2, 3, 4- offensive and defamatory. Thank you. --Ashleyyoursmile! 10:57, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Clarification request: Race and intelligence archived

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello. Just to let you know that the clarification request you filed, Clarification request: Race and intelligence, has been archived after the arbitrators requested it to be archived. A permalink to the clarification request before it was closed is here. Let me know if you have further questions, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 21:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Just wanted to say ...

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

RESPECT!, and the follow up was pretty good too. TY. — Ched (talk) 15:08, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you!

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
 
"Sunflower Award"

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

Your good work has not gone unnoticed!

  Atsme 💬 📧 11:15, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Dennis!

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I literally only check my watchlist when I pop on to look something up. And here I see you, doing what you're doing.

I went quiet for the same reason you left. I'm very curious to see if you find things better now, because I've been missing wiki lately. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 02:10, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

↑  Like↑ — Ched (talk) 03:10, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
I took most of the distraction pages off my watchlist long ago, so I haven't the faintest idea what the WMF is up to :-). --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 16:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Something about taking over the world and installing laser beams on sharks (everyone deserves a hot meal). You know, the usual. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:15, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Protection on Talk:Race and intelligence

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi there. I noticed that there is currently an RfC taking place Talk:Race and intelligence. I am concerned by the page being extended-confirmed protected during the RfC, since this would prohibit legitimate (auto-)confirmed users from contributing to it. I am wondering if the protection level could be lowered to semi-protection until the close of the RfC, so as to let more editors participate while still weeding out IP vandalism. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

  • That would defeat the purpose of the protection. Concerns were raised when the discussion took place about ECP, but in the end, I decided it was worth the risk to try ECP for 6 months, then gauge the effectiveness before renewing it. At this time, I would decline lowering the protection level temporarily. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:51, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2021

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

 

  Administrator changes

  Enchanter • Carlossuarez46

  Interface administrator changes

  Ragesoss

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  • The user group oversight will be renamed to suppress. This is for technical reasons. You can comment at T112147 if you have objections.

  Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Apology

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Dennis, I just wanted to drop a note to say that I think I came on a bit strong at ANI a few days ago, concerning the dispute over the word murder. We were coming at it from different angles, but I recognise that you were more familiar with the overall situation than I was, and I maybe over-reacted to your comment. I just want to make sure there aren't any bad feelings, I've always had a very high regard for your administrative work, and should have spent a bit longer thinking about what you were saying before responding. Best GirthSummit (blether) 18:41, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

  • I've forgotten about it, so I couldn't have been too offended. I've a habit of being bold and strong in my statements from time to time, so I'm not one to complain when others do the same. I think we all need to be free to speak that way to get to solutions. We're on the same team, it's ok if we bump heads from time to time. In this case, obviously, no harm, no foul. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:45, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
    Thanks for that response - glad there's no air in need of clearing, I agree with what you're saying about the need for folk to be free to speak to each other openly. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 20:26, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Thank you for supporting EC-protection for the R&I article and talk-page at WP:AE, and for implementing it. The discussion at the recently closed RfC at that talk-page was civil and productive, in large part because of the absence of SPAs, socks, and off-wiki canvassing. The drama and time sink of last year's RfC were avoided. Your willingness to step up and protect that page is much appreciated. NightHeron (talk) 17:17, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Precious
 
Nine years!

Good to see you around! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

DS 2021 Review Update

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Dear Dennis Brown,

Thank you for participating in the recent discretionary sanctions community consultation. We are truly appreciative of the range of feedback we received and the high quality discussion which occurred during the process. We have now posted a summary of the feedback we've received and also a preview of some of what we expect to happen next. We hope that the second phase, a presentation of draft recommendations, will proceed on time in June or early July. You will be notified when this phase begins, unless you choose to to opt-out of future mailings by removing your name here.
--Barkeep49 & KevinL (aka L235) 21:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

ANI

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I presume you got pinged, and I am aware that you are unavailable to deal with the issue, but since I mentioned you there I am notifying you that I've opened a thread at ANI that may involve you. --JBL (talk) 13:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

With respect to your closing statement: I take exception to the first sentence, particularly because I did not "claim[] personal attacks". I request that you revise to be clear whose arguments you are criticizing. --JBL (talk) 13:38, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:8BALL" listed at Redirects for discussion

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia:8BALL. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 25#Wikipedia:8BALL until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. dudhhrContribs 22:26, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2021

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

 

  Administrator changes

  Ashleyyoursmile • Less Unless
  Husond • MattWade • MJCdetroit • Carioca • Vague Rant • Kingboyk • Thunderboltz • Gwen Gale • AniMate • SlimVirgin (deceased)

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  • Wikimedia previously used the IRC network Freenode. However, due to changes over who controlled the network with reports of a forceful takeover by several ex-staff members, the Wikimedia IRC Group Contacts decided to move to the new Libera Chat network. It has been reported that Wikimedia related channels on Freenode have been forcibly taken over if they pointed members to Libera. There is a migration guide and Wikimedia discussions about this.

  Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Articles for Creation July 2021 Backlog Elimination Drive

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

Hello Dennis Brown:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is currently a backlog of over 1800 articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for Creation at 21:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC). If you do not wish to recieve future notification, please remove your name from the mailing list.

Administrators' newsletter – July 2021

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

  Guideline and policy news

  • Consensus has been reached to delete all books in the book namespace. There was rough consensus that the deleted books should still be available on request at WP:REFUND even after the namespace is removed.
  • An RfC is open to discuss the next steps following a trial which automatically applied pending changes to TFAs.

  Technical news

  • IP addresses of unregistered users are to be hidden from everyone. There is a rough draft of how IP addresses may be shown to users who need to see them. This currently details allowing administrators, checkusers, stewards and those with a new usergroup to view the full IP address of unregistered users. Editors with at least 500 edits and an account over a year old will be able to see all but the end of the IP address in the proposal. The ability to see the IP addresses hidden behind the mask would be dependent on agreeing to not share the parts of the IP address they can see with those who do not have access to the same information. Accessing part of or the full IP address of a masked editor would also be logged. Comments on the draft are being welcomed at the talk page.

  Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dennis_Brown/Archive_44&oldid=1079738429"
  NODES
admin 137
chat 3
COMMUNITY 37
Idea 5
idea 5
Note 7
Project 6
USERS 13