Jump to content

User talk:Dennis Brown/Archive 43

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42Archive 43Archive 44Archive 45→Archive 48

Fluor Corp

Hi Dennis. Do you have a minute to take a look at my COI request here regarding a couple unsourced sentences that were recently added? The response that is there is a bit odd/confusing. CorporateM (Talk) 04:51, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

  • I'm lost. Why don't you just remove it as unsourced? As for the comment about withdrawing GA status, that sounds a bit hamfisted and unnecessary over a simple question. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:03, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Second Battle of El Alamein

Would you mind having a look at recent edits pls, there's another decisive imbroglio. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

  • I'm pretty swamped at work right now. You have a template for an RFC, essentially, or you can have an RFC on the template itself that would have global scope on whether to use "decisive" ever or leave it to the individual article. Of course it needs to be worded neutrally and advertised the same. Really, it is a content issue, not an administrative. Me injecting myself in that one RFC is an exception, but I think you guys need to hash it out yourselves. I don't have an opinion on that particular article, btw. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:54, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Your reply to me

Hi again, Dennis. I didn't see your reply to me — you left only a 12-minute window for me to do so before you archived the whole thing. I'd just like to add that I took some trouble over my remarks, and was disappointed that you didn't really (IMO) address them, but answered in a more general way, perhaps for lack of time. Please note, Dennis, that I don't by any means want to pester you when you're busy IRL. But if you're interested at all in what I have to say, do feel free to dig our dialogue out of the archives at some future time, when you're less busy. (If you ever are, but one can hope.) The issues seem quite important to me. Bishonen | talk 23:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC).

  • Sorry, I archived it because I knew I really wouldn't have time and the whole thing is just frustrating when it should be very simple. My problem with the article was one of proper sourcing. I have no dog in that hunt. I'm neither Christian nor Atheist and really don't care how it is labelled as long as it matches the sources. I grow weary of the battles at this type of articles when the solution is as simple as following the sources. Frankly, this is a weakness of Wikipedia, and often these POV battles make some of our articles look like a rushed High School project with mismatched sources or flat out synth/OR. Getting into minutia seems pointless, as again, the bone I'm picking is about the text matching the sources, not about any particular point of view. Realistically, I don't see having much time in the near future to give it the time it deserves. I haven't had a day off in weeks. Because I deal with factories/dealers in the UK, Hungary, China, Australia, etc, it seems I'm staying busy around the clock. That isn't unusual for me this time of year. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:47, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
OK, let's forget about it. Bishonen | talk 15:44, 9 April 2018 (UTC).

Administrators' newsletter – May 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2018).

Administrator changes

added None
removed Chochopk • Coffee • Gryffindor • Jimp • Knowledge Seeker • Lankiveil • Peridon • Rjd0060

Guideline and policy news

  • The ability to create articles directly in mainspace is now indefinitely restricted to autoconfirmed users.
  • A proposal is being discussed which would create a new "event coordinator" right that would allow users to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit.

Technical news

  • AbuseFilter has received numerous improvements, including an OOUI overhaul, syntax highlighting, ability to search existing filters, and a few new functions. In particular, the search feature can be used to ensure there aren't existing filters for what you need, and the new equals_to_any function can be used when checking multiple namespaces. One major upcoming change is the ability to see which filters are the slowest. This information is currently only available to those with access to Logstash.
  • When blocking anonymous users, a cookie will be applied that reloads the block if the user changes their IP. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. This currently only occurs when hard-blocking accounts.
  • The block notice shown on mobile will soon be more informative and point users to a help page on how to request an unblock, just as it currently does on desktop.
  • There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.

Arbitration

Obituaries

  • Lankiveil (Craig Franklin) passed away in mid-April. Lankiveil joined Wikipedia on 12 August 2004 and became an administrator on 31 August 2008. During his time with the Wikimedia community, Lankiveil served as an oversighter for the English Wikipedia and as president of Wikimedia Australia.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I found out about the AN discussion [1] but it was closed before I could join it. I just wanted to let you know that the IA Bot, since it is a third party tool, has its own Terms of Service (TOS). Which state that the user is responsible for its use. Which, in essence, means editors should not be running this feature that adds archive links to live links on articles unless they are willing to verify the links that they are adding, and depending on circumstances, are willing to steward the links in future. Essentially meaning they should not be running it on a drive-by basis. When they run the bot to fix broken links, they are required to add messages to talk pages, for example, there is some responsibility there. I'm by no means asking you to take my word for it. I have the link to the TOS plus a link to where the bot owner spells it out in regard to this particular feature: [2] see "Third-party Websites and Resources." And then for the creator:

"Actually only rescuing dead links is the default behavior. That behavior you linked in the diff has to be requested by the user by checking a checkbox. The checkbox option clearly states that it's optional. As the tool interface's ToS states, edits made on behalf of the user, is the responsibility of the user.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 19:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)"

That link is from this message board: [3]

So you could basically quote policy when this issue comes up again in cases where an editor runs this feature on an article he has no stake in other than to just run it and move on. Let's just say I have experience with drive-by users running this feature on my articles too. dawnleelynn(talk) 00:44, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the info. We really can't enforce the terms of a third party software system, but we can and should pass policy prohibiting "rescuing" links that don't need rescuing. The community hasn't seemed to want that at this time, based on previous RFCs. I will check more into this later, thanks for doing some footwork for me. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:54, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Well if it helps in some way then that's good. The last editor that added these archive links to live links to one of my new articles a couple days ago, told me that he had used this feature in about 400-500 articles. And he was doing that in a drive-by sense, I know because he was going to drive-by my article at first. Anyway, I have some other arguments as to issues using this feature can cause. For example, if you have links that go bad because a web site reorganizes itself, you won't know the links went bad let alone know that you can update your live links, things will just stay the same in the references, you will have dead links and users will have to use the archive links instead. The new live links won't get used or updated in your references. That's also a problem that occurs when running the bot to fix dead links, but at least you get a message in the talk page that asks someone to verify the dead links. I actually do that all time with any that come up in my Watchlist. A good portion of the broken links that I verify need to be manually handled due to the archive link being a capture that didn't work right, or like I said the live link just needs to be updated so I do that and remove the archive link, or sometimes I can find a capture at archive.is instead that does work, you get the idea. I have fixed tons of broken links since I started editing. Not too many other editors seem to like to do it, someone has do it.
      • I was just telling MelanieN one other thing I discovered by reading the bot documentation. You can always fight fire with fire by using the bot to your advantage. You can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to your source code to stop the bot from running on your article. Whenever anyone tries to run that feature we don't care for, they will get the same messages they get when the tag is not there. They will think the bot has failed when they go to check the article, but not know why. However, it also stops the bot from fixing dead links. Which any editor can do by running this tool: [6]. Maybe not for all your articles, just the rather large or special ones. For MelanieN I just suggested her barack obama and trump articles. Or, one could always take the tag out briefly to run the bot manually to fix dead links with the archive links to live links option unchecked. Some users may figure this out by looking at the article source, but many are not that saavy. MelanieN is looking into it with her fellow editors at the talk page. dawnleelynn(talk) 17:34, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
        • Here's an article where the IA Bot was run to fix dead links twice not that long ago. It left messages on what it did in the talk page. Two links were "fixed." I have all of the rodeo articles in my Watchlist but this is not my article. I verified them, though, like I usually do. Both fixes did not work. The first was a hall of fame who had changed their web site. It did not need an archive just the live link updated. I updated the live link and removed the archive link. The next one was where the bot replaced the dead link with a archive link to archive.is. The capture at that link was a bad one. But I found a good one in the Wayback Machine so I replaced it. The article is [[7]]. Just wanted you to have an example of what I was talking about. The bot was 0 for 2 in this article. And not a very large article. dawnleelynn(talk) 18:01, 5 March 2018 (UTC)



Dating ahead of time so this doesn't get archived. I'm working overtime but really want to follow up on this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Another RfC on Net Neutrality

A month ago you participated in an RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 147#Net neutrality. The same proposal has been posted again at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal: A US-only CentralNotice in support of Net Neutrality. (This notice has been sent to all who participated in the prior RfC, regardless of which side they supported). --Guy Macon (talk) 20:51, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MegaCyanide666

A tag has been placed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MegaCyanide666 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Did not check block reason; accident

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. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 06:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Merging

Hopefully you didn't misunderstand me. When I asked for merger, it was presuming you might have some other way in reopening access to the original account MC666 and people could know some of the other edits made. 150.129.199.152 (talk) 14:55, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

  • I didn't take anything negative from it, I was just saying any kind of merge is technically impossible using the software here. I'm happy to leave it in Boing's hands, and have offered my advice which will not restrict you from editing in any way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:57, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Oh thanks. I was fearing you might have misconceived the reason I asked it. 150.129.199.152 (talk) 14:59, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

May 2018

Pot calling kettle black. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Information icon Please do not add or change content, as you did at Carolina Reaper, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. You're trying to add news to the article as if it were established reviewed clinical findings. This is unencyclopedic; WP:NOTNEWS and fails WP:MEDRS. Zefr (talk) 00:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Stop icon
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Since Zefr didn't give you the mandatory notification, here you go. Boomerang probably. Meters (talk) 01:44, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello!

I see that you're around in the community again. Welcome back! --JustBerry (talk) 18:24, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Kind of. I've had a little time this past week. I'm still pretty scarce. Working a full time job, plus owning a business on the cutting edge of an emerging market, that tends to eat up all my time. Put I try to show up at least once a week and clean up a little. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Hey, we all do our best, right? It's really great to see you back. We (Buster7 and Isaacl included) are trying to get WP:RETENTION back up and running as best as possible. (P.S. spoilers for some up and coming nominations/templates/gizmos to make the nomination process more streamlined if the project gets low on nominations). --JustBerry (talk) 19:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

FYI

I have unblocked Born2cycle. See the discussion on his talk page. wbm1058 (talk) 14:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

  • That is fine. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:55, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I've just now have had time to actually review the case, wbm1058, as I work a great deal. Technically, it was out of process since he didn't request an unblock. What you did was an admin revert (or nullification) of my block, not a reviewed unblock. I don't agree with the process used here and I don't see where the blocking policy allows it, but I'm not going to labor it at this time. Unless there is some urgency, WP:AN would be the place to have reviewed my action. Or Arb. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello again!

Hello Dennis,

I think I may have mentioned this before, but I really cannot emphasize it enough: it's great to see you again on Wikipedia. I know you may still be busy (and not as available as you may seem), but I am glad that we can still remain in touch with you! As a few of us have been trying to make WP:WER active again, we wanted to make sure the coordinator list was up to date, so members of the project who want to become active in the project's efforts again can have a point of contact if need be. As such, I think it may be best to update the coordinator list that you have stated at the top of this page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Members. Although I do understand this is a wiki and changes can be made as necessary, I did want to reach out to you prior to removing your statement and making a "Coordinator List: " more or less. Many of them are no longer involved in the project (or inactive), one of them is blocked, and SlimVirgin has indicated that they are no longer interested in coordinating the project. I have reached out to the other listed coordinators; I am waiting for their response. I am happy to leave them on a "Retired Coordinator List: ," at least until they do respond or become active again. Buster7, Isaacl, and I have been active in maintaining WP:EOTW, and the project can certainly branch out further than this one sub-project with the help of more active coordinators.

Cheers, JustBerry (talk) 21:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

  • I had my status listed as "(inactive)" and in my opinion, that is how it should remain and in the same spot as when I joined. It has always been a consensus project, discussions and RFCs should work and will let you know who is really involved or not. I wouldn't feel comfortable interjecting at this time as my status really is inactive. When or if that will change, I just don't know at this time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:19, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Ah, well, there is no question as to what your status should be listed as. This has been widely understood by the community, including myself.
Perhaps my reason for reaching out to you may have been buried in my message. Back in 2014, it appears that you wrote a message at the top of Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Members regarding who you considered to be the coordinators of the project. Out of politeness, I wanted to check in with you prior to replacing your message with a list of active coordinators; this is not a matter of your interjecting into a major decision. Of the former coordinators whom you had endorsed in your signed message, one of those users is blocked, the two coordinators who I have heard back from have declined coordinating, and you, as you have mentioned, are inactive. Moreover, the project has become inactive to the extent that there are no substantial discussions happening.
Per WP:BOLD, I will list the active coordinators as "Coordinators: " at the top of the Members tab, and the former coordinators (who no longer appear to be inactive either with the project or in general) will be moved to the "Retired Coordinators" section at the bottom of the Members tab. Of course, the list of coordinators is not set in stone and is certainly open to further discussion. (Update: This is being discussed on the project talk page. --JustBerry (talk) 05:57, 6 June 2018 (UTC))
I hope I have been able to sufficiently clarify my original message. Best wishes, JustBerry (talk) 03:58, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
If someone wants to make a go of it, they are welcome to. I have no authority or desire to stop them at this stage. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at User:Kudpung/What do admins do?

 You are invited to join the discussion at User:Kudpung/What do admins do?. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2018).

Administrator changes

added None
removed Al Ameer son • AliveFreeHappy • Cenarium • Lupo • MichaelBillington

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in June. This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.
  • The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team will build granular types of blocks in 2018 (e.g. a block from uploading or editing specific pages, categories, or namespaces, as opposed to a full-site block). Feedback on the concept may be left at the talk page.
  • There is now a checkbox on Special:ListUsers to let you see only users in temporary user groups.
  • It is now easier for blocked mobile users to see why they were blocked.

Arbitration

  • A recent technical issue with the Arbitration Committee's spam filter inadvertently caused all messages sent to the committee through Wikipedia (i.e. Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee) to be discarded. If you attempted to send an email to the Arbitration Committee via Wikipedia between May 16 and May 31, your message was not received and you are encouraged to resend it. Messages sent outside of these dates or directly to the Arbitration Committee email address were not affected by this issue.

Miscellaneous

Administrators' newsletter – July 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2018).

Administrator changes

added Pbsouthwood • TheSandDoctor
readded Gogo Dodo
removed Andrevan • Doug • EVula • KaisaL • Tony Fox • WilyD

Bureaucrat changes

removed Andrevan • EVula

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC about the deletion of drafts closed with a consensus to change the wording of WP:NMFD. Specifically, a draft that has been repeatedly resubmitted and declined at AfC without any substantial improvement may be deleted at MfD if consensus determines that it is unlikely to ever meet the requirements for mainspace and it otherwise meets one of the reasons for deletion outlined in the deletion policy.
  • A request for comment closed with a consensus that the {{promising draft}} template cannot be used to indefinitely prevent a WP:G13 speedy deletion nomination.

Technical news

  • Starting on July 9, the WMF Security team, Trust & Safety, and the broader technical community will be seeking input on an upcoming change that will restrict editing of site-wide JavaScript and CSS to a new technical administrators user group. Bureaucrats and stewards will be able to grant this right per a community-defined process. The intention is to reduce the number of accounts who can edit frontend code to those who actually need to, which in turn lessens the risk of malicious code being added that compromises the security and privacy of everyone who accesses Wikipedia. For more information, please review the FAQ.
  • Syntax highlighting has been graduated from a Beta feature on the English Wikipedia. To enable this feature, click the highlighter icon () in your editing toolbar (or under the hamburger menu in the 2017 wikitext editor). This feature can help prevent you from making mistakes when editing complex templates.
  • IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in July (previously scheduled for June). This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.

Miscellaneous

  • Currently around 20% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 17% a year ago. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless if you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Matcologo.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Matcologo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:26, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

MC666

I have mentioned you for your input on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MegaCyanide666. Capitals00 (talk) 12:08, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Just reminding you in case you didn't see. Capitals00 (talk) 16:53, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Looks like there is already a CU working that case, who is more familiar than I am. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:43, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't think Bbb23 is going to analyze behavior. You are familiar with MC666 and this sock. I also don't think it was right to believe that Draculathedragon forgot his password and became interested this recently without any expected reformation in behavior.[8] We also see such impersonation of old accounts by new accounts in regular basis for excusing their evasion of scrutiny. Capitals00 (talk) 08:09, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
I would rather leave this to one of the clerks or someone who is here more than I am. Boing! said Zebedee has stepped in and he is more capable that I am in dealing with the matter. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:18, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2018).

Administrator changes

added Sro23
readded KaisaL • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

  • After a discussion at Meta, a new user group called "interface administrators" (formerly "technical administrator") has been created. Come the end of August, interface admins will be the only users able to edit site-wide JavaScript and CSS pages like MediaWiki:Common.js and MediaWiki:Common.css, or edit other user's personal JavaScript and CSS. The intention is to improve security and privacy by reducing the number of accounts which could be used to compromise the site or another user's account through malicious code. The new user group can be assigned and revoked by bureaucrats. Discussion is ongoing to establish details for implementing the group on the English Wikipedia.
  • Following a request for comment, the WP:SISTER style guideline now states that in the mainspace, interwiki links to Wikinews should only be made as per the external links guideline. This generally means that within the body of an article, you should not link to Wikinews about a particular event that is only a part of the larger topic. Wikinews links in "external links" sections can be used where helpful, but not automatically if an equivalent article from a reliable news outlet could be linked in the same manner.

Technical news

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Returned IP you wanted blocked

See [9]. They turned up here, and I've blocked the range for a year. And probably the account that showed up immediately after. Doug Weller talk 10:51, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2018).

Administrator changes

added None
removed Asterion • Crisco 1492 • KF • Kudpung • Liz • Randykitty • Spartaz
renamed Optimist on the run → Voice of Clam

Interface administrator changes

added Amorymeltzer • Mr. Stradivarius • MusikAnimal • MSGJ • TheDJ • Xaosflux

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a "stop-gap" discussion, six users have temporarily been made interface administrators while discussion is ongoing for a more permanent process for assigning the permission. Interface administrators are now the only editors allowed to edit sitewide CSS and JavaScript pages, as well as CSS/JS pages in another user's userspace. Previously, all administrators had this ability. The right can be granted and revoked by bureaucrats.

Technical news

  • Because of a data centre test you will be able to read but not edit the wikis for up to an hour on 12 September and 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time. The time when you can't edit might be shorter than an hour.
  • Some abuse filter variables have changed. They are now easier to understand for non-experts. The old variables will still work but filter editors are encouraged to replace them with the new ones. You can find the list of changed variables on mediawiki.org. They have a note which says Deprecated. Use ... instead. An example is article_text which is now page_title.
  • Abuse filters can now use how old a page is. The variable is page_age.

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee has resolved to perform a round of Checkuser and Oversight appointments. The usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will be requested to assist in the vetting process. The deadline to submit an application is 23:59 UTC, 12 September, and the candidates that move forward will be published on-wiki for community comments on 18 September.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Strike tags

Care to try that one again? :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:08, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Dammit, I should have looked at the edit count and I would have seen that I was probably editing an old version (just dawned on me). Thanks for mopping up my spill, Sarek. Dennis Brown - 2¢

WP:AE

You are mentioned at the following AE request - Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Born2cycle. Black Kite (talk) 23:14, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

  • I disagreed with the unblock, but wasn't feeling like a battle. The whole situation was handled kind of shitty, to be honest. Should have come to me first instead of after the fact, given the severity of the block. Oh well, I'm not going to lose sleep over it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:13, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #22736

A user you have blocked has opened UTRS appeal #22736 on the Unblock Ticket Request System. The reviewing administrator, Dlohcierekim (talk · contribs), has requested your input:

Joobo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Time: Sep 21, 2018 13:19:37

Message: Is elocution sufficient? Restore TPA and allow discussion their talk?

Notes:

  • If you do not have an account on UTRS, you may create one at the administrator registration interface.
  • Alternatively, you can respond here and indicate whether you are supportive or opposed to an unblock for this user and your rationale, if applicable.

--UTRSBot (talk) 13:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #22736

A user you have blocked has opened UTRS appeal #22736 on the Unblock Ticket Request System. The reviewing administrator, Dlohcierekim (talk · contribs), has requested your input:

Joobo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Time: Sep 25, 2018 16:25:19

Message: Not sure this is enough.

Notes:

  • If you do not have an account on UTRS, you may create one at the administrator registration interface.
  • Alternatively, you can respond here and indicate whether you are supportive or opposed to an unblock for this user and your rationale, if applicable.

--UTRSBot (talk) 16:25, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Again, I recommend against it but not going to labor it. The record of appeals speaks for itself. Pardon if I keep it short, I just had my left shoulder rebuilt and every word is a huge pain to type, so I'm not likely to go sign up for UTRS just to read it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:37, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2018).

Administrator changes

added Justlettersandnumbers • L235
removed Bgwhite • HorsePunchKid • J Greb • KillerChihuahua • Rami R • Winhunter

Interface administrator changes

added Cyberpower678 • Deryck Chan • Oshwah • Pharos • Ragesoss • Ritchie333

Oversight changes

removed Guerillero • NativeForeigner • Snowolf • Xeno

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Partial blocks should be available for testing in October on the Test Wikipedia and the Beta-Cluster. This new feature allows admins to block users from editing specific pages and in the near-future, namespaces and uploading files. You can expect more updates and an invitation to help with testing once it is available.
  • The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team is currently looking for input on how to measure the effectiveness of blocks. This is in particular related to how they will measure the success of the aforementioned partial blocks.
  • Because of a data centre test, you will be able to read but not edit the Wikimedia projects for up to an hour on 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time.

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee has, by motion, amended the procedure on functionary inactivity.
  • The community consultation for 2018 CheckUser and Oversight appointments has concluded. Appointments will be made by October 11.
  • Following a request for comment, the size of the Arbitration Committee will be decreased to 13 arbitrators, starting in 2019. Additionally, the minimum support percentage required to be appointed to a two-year term on ArbCom has been increased to 60%. ArbCom candidates who receive between 50% and 60% support will be appointed to one-year terms instead.
  • Nominations for the 2018 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission are being accepted until 12 October. These are the editors who help run the ArbCom election smoothly. If you are interested in volunteering for this role, please consider nominating yourself.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Hope you're doing well

Read about the shoulder rebuild. Hope you're doing well and best wishes for the quickest possible recovery. Best wishes. --regentspark (comment) 21:10, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Thank you, that is very kind of you to say. It went from a simple removal of 1cm of bone on the clavical to cutting on 3 different bones, repairing the rotator cuff and the bicep tendon. The doctor summed it up as "That thing was a mess". The arthritis was very severe, but fortunately the cuff and tendon weren't quite as bad. It is actually healing fairly well, although I will wear the brace for two months and they tell me it will be at least 6 months before I can lift moderate weight (30-40 pounds), and likely a year before it is fully back to "normal". The nerve block they did worked well, and the pain hasn't been severe, just mild to moderate but persistent, so I haven't needed too much medication. I can't complain, considering how extensive the work was. The biggest thing is that I have a great partner at home who has gone above and beyond to try to reduce work at the house, plus helping me shower and get dressed. That makes all the difference. Against doctors orders, I've had to work most days and I'm short handed, AND I swear the day I had the surgery, the slow season ended and I've been swamped, but that is a good thing, just bad timing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:15, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Category:cars to category: automobile.

Dennis, there is a decision regarding a proposed category change here. [[10]]. I'm notifying editors who were involved in previous change discussions. Springee (talk) 10:30, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Boo!

Happy Halloween!

Hello Dennis Brown:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – North America1000 15:52, 22 October 2018 (UTC)



Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Question about how the Car/Automobile discussion can proceed

Dennis, I'll start by acknowledging you are an involved admin but I don't think these questions violate any canvasing or similar rules. If they do please let me know and also please don't answer in a way that would be later seen as prejudicial. As I read the discussion here [[11]] we have what looks like an old fashioned "no consensus". Given some of the circumstances associated with this discussion I think a third party review will probably be needed. What is the correct path to get a 3rd party review? Can this discussion be used as a way to challenge the closing of a few days back? What is the correct forum to pose that question? Thanks! Springee (talk) 14:09, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Stop your canvassing across half the project. CfDs usually run for seven days, some longer. An uninvolved administrator will then close it. No further action is required on your part. RGloucester — ☎ 14:52, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
You are right that an uninvolved admin will automatically close it at the right time, but there is no reason to come here and be rude about it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:58, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2018).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Partial blocks is now available for testing on the Test Wikipedia. The new functionality allows you to block users from editing specific pages. Bugs may exist and can be reported on the local talk page or on Meta. A discussion regarding deployment to English Wikipedia will be started by community liaisons sometime in the near future.
  • A user script is now available to quickly review unblock requests.
  • The 2019 Community Wishlist Survey is now accepting new proposals until November 11, 2018. The results of this survey will determine what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year. Voting on the proposals will take place from November 16 to November 30, 2018. Specifically, there is a proposal category for admins and stewards that may be of interest.

Arbitration

  • Eligible editors will be invited to nominate themselves as candidates in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 4 until November 13. Voting will begin on November 19 and last until December 2.
  • The Arbitration Committee's email address has changed to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org. Other email lists, such as functionaries-en and clerks-l, remain unchanged.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:18, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Neutral Fair Guy

Dennis I know your intentions were good, but you have made a big mistake five years ago[12]. I'm sorry to have to tell you that Neutral Fair Guy is strictly speaking MY account, and was created genuinely, and I can prove it by logging in as only I know the password. I tried it a few days ago but got locked out even of editing from this account because of the autoblock, and the actual account was revoked at the talk page by NawlinWiki more than a year after though I cannot work out why since I never again logged in after that time (clean up on old accounts?). I never truly concealed that it was as Sinbad Barron but I don't edit that often. The fact is simple, I - and only I - used the computer from where I edited Neutral Fair Guy. Nobody else I my household touched it. So no technical evidence might have suggested Evlekis. Then, the edits. You may not understand Balkans affairs but Evlekis and I were TOTALLY SPEAKING on opposite sides of EVERY FACTOR of Balkans reporting. He & an editor called White Writer were the two biggest Balkans POV warriors whereas I edited neutrally (although to the opponent, it came across as pro-Albanian as oppose to White Writer and Evlekis's pro-Serb stance). I personally created Butcher of the Balkans as a redirect to Slobodan Milosevic and I DESPERATELY want the article history to reflect this because I feel this has been my biggest personal Wiki achievement. The edits as Neutral Fair Guy may at first glance look tendentious and yes I probably won't do most now since my Balkans ban is lifted, but they reflected my mood at the time and they were all meant genuinely. If NFG was not banned, I would be editing from that account now. Obviously not for socking. I don't do that any more. I realize I'd likely have had to serve a ban as a Sinbad Barron sock, but like Let's keep it neutral, I served my time and earned my unblock. Same would have happened with Neutral Fair Guy. I'd like you to make the adjustment BACK to either my account, or leave it at Sinbad Barron, but that was NOT Evlekis and I feel sickened he takes the credit for my work. --Sinbad Barron (talk) 13:35, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Being that a Checkuser came in and made a connection, it is out of my hands. An admin can't override a CU, you get bit stripped for trying. Honestly, I barely remember the case, and I am seldom here as it is. The problem is that WilliamH is the CU that made the connection, and he has long since retired. You need to email the CUs to get anything done, and do so from that account. You should be able to do that while logged in that account. Keep in mind, you are technically socking NOW, and subject to get blocked. I would recommend against any action until this was settled, but I can't stop any admin or CU. I do recommend you not do any more editing at this point. A CU might take action, might defer it to WP:AN, I don't know. Because it has been so long, and my role there was only to look at evidence and present to the CU, I would rather not get involved simply because I don't have the time to investigate the whole case. Here in the US, it is Thanksgiving, and I'm booked up for the whole weekend with kids and grandkids. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:54, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
It looks like Let's keep it neutral was unblocked per the standard offer and using this account isn't evasion. They shouldn't be blocked at this point. They're discussing past socking. Just from looking over talk pages, it seems.--v/r - TP 18:55, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

ANI Nonsense

Hey. User:EEng is insisting his nonsensical bullshit be appended to a closed thread. I've removed it 3 times and he's restored it as many times. Can you please take a look. It was only recently moved to the archive.--v/r - TP 18:45, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

The true nature of what's going on is explained in my edit summary here [13]. EEng 19:20, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
The pair of you have 90,000 edits between you, and you're edit-warring over whether an ANI archive page needs to include File:Bible_Camp.JPG? Are the pair of you trying to compete with Bauder for the coveted "most ridiculous hill to die on" award for 2018? ‑ Iridescent 19:27, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) EEng, I appreciate your humour more than (maybe not more than, but probably at least as much as) most, but not everyone does. I also tend to share your "admins are no better than everyone else" point of view, but this image doesn't add anything to the closed, already-archived discussion you're trying to shoehorn it into, other than personally attacking the participants. Do you really think this is worth your time? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:30, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Also, whatever happens, I'm putting this on WP:Lamest edit wars. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Ivanvector, it may have been closed, but follow-on comments to closed threads are common, and my post was a completely serious comment on the absurdity of the whole thing which (perhaps you don't know) continued an even more absurd knock-down-drag-out, with the same cast of characters, at Talk:MOS. And the thread hadn't been archived when I made the post. Ol' TP removed it, I restored it, and then he snuck in another removal just before someone else happened to archive it. His actions were a clear violation of TPO, and as an admin he should have known better and needs to learn better.
    • Is the presence of this image worth fighting over? – No.
    • Is the principle – that clueless admins who don't seem to know their place as admins, and don't seem up on basic guidelines like WP:TPO, ought to be held to account and schooled if necessary – worth fighting over? – Yes, because admins like that do a lot of damage.
EEng 19:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Yessireee, Wyatt EEng.... I'll see ya Bible Camp, and I'll raise ya one goddamn dirty Bonzo's album. Doc Evans 123 (talk) 22:22, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
This was indeed a silly editwar, but characterizing it as "personally attacking the participants" is the sort of "nonsensical bullshit" that TParis should really be objecting to. Humorously suggesting that a tedious squall was akin to a food-fight isn't any kind of personal attack, under even the vaguest possible Wikipedian interpretation of that notion. It's simply a criticism of the discussion (the edits, not the editors) as unworthy of our time. I just looked at it, and sure enough. It's two editors having a two-editor squabble that pretty much no one else GaF about.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:30, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I haven't logged in for a few days, and I see this is the most pressing matter before me. For what it is worth, I would argue that admin are charged with managing the admin pages, and unless they remove something that changes the meaning of a discussion or individual comment, I would just leave it alone. Not that admin are more "right", just they are who the community picked to decide petty things like this. In the end, however, it is a silly picture that probably doesn't belong at ANI under any circumstance, although leaving it hurt nothing either. So in the end, my final comment would be that "the only winning move is not to play." Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:06, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Merry Merry

Happy Christmas!
Hello DB,
Early in A Child's Christmas in Wales the young Dylan and his friend Jim Prothero witness smoke pouring from Jim's home. After the conflagration has been extinguished Dylan writes that

Nobody could have had a noisier Christmas Eve. And when the firemen turned off the hose and were standing in the wet, smoky room, Jim's Aunt, Miss. Prothero, came downstairs and peered in at them. Jim and I waited, very quietly, to hear what she would say to them. She said the right thing, always. She looked at the three tall firemen in their shining helmets, standing among the smoke and cinders and dissolving snowballs, and she said, "Would you like anything to read?"

My thanks to you for your efforts to keep the 'pedia readable in case the firemen chose one of our articles :-) Best wishes to you and yours and happy editing in 2019. MarnetteD|Talk 18:54, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy Saturnalia

Happy Saturnalia
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:53, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Peace Dove Christmas

Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension.
Happy Holidays. ―Buster7 ☎ 23:56, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2018).

Administrator changes

readded Al Ameer son • Randykitty • Spartaz
removed Boson • Daniel J. Leivick • Efe • Esanchez7587 • Fred Bauder • Garzo • Martijn Hoekstra • Orangemike

Interface administrator changes

removedDeryck Chan

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, the Mediation Committee is now closed and will no longer be accepting case requests.
  • A request for comment is in progress to determine whether members of the Bot Approvals Group should satisfy activity requirements in order to remain in that role.
  • A request for comment is in progress regarding whether to change the administrator inactivity policy, such that administrators "who have made no logged administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped". Currently, the policy states that administrators "who have made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped".
  • A proposal has been made to temporarily restrict editing of the Main Page to interface administrators in order to mitigate the impact of compromised accounts.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • In late November, an attacker compromised multiple accounts, including at least four administrator accounts, and used them to vandalize Wikipedia. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. Sharing the same password across multiple websites makes your account vulnerable, especially if your password was used on a website that suffered a data breach. As these incidents have shown, these concerns are not pure fantasies.
  • Wikipedia policy requires administrators to have strong passwords. To further reinforce security, administrators should also consider enabling two-factor authentication. A committed identity can be used to verify that you are the true account owner in the event that your account is compromised and/or you are unable to log in.

Obituaries

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Dennis Brown,
Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! North America1000 14:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
– Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year, Dennis!

Happy New Year!

Some celestial fireworks to herald another year of progress for mankind and Wikipedia. All the very best , Dennnis,
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Happy Holidays to all of you.

Thanks for the notes and such, I appreciate the kindness. I haven't been around much over the last year. As many of you know, I have been designing UV lamps and products for a long time, and about a dozen years ago started designing them for cannabis growers. I don't have to tell you that the cannabis industry is exploding in the US right now, as well as in Europe, so I've been working around the clock. We have access to some rather unique patents, so we currently dominate that rapidly growing market. Thanks to a great distributor in Exeter, Devon, UK, we now cover all of the EU and all of North America, and I desperately need a vacation but can't take the time....

Any way, I hope things keep moving like this and I can hire more hands, which would mean I will have some actual spare time to spend here. To be honest, I'm not thrilled with every turn in direction that has happened here, including what I believe is too much focus on political correctness and not enough focus on neutral, quality content, but that isn't the reason I haven't been around, work is. You have to may hay while the sun is shining, and it is shining brightly. I've also had a major shoulder surgery (healing fine, thank you) and had to get back to work weeks before I was scheduled to, 4 days after the surgery, and have a new family with three "adopted" adult kids and 5 grand kids, which is new for me. In short, I've really been busy, but generally enjoying life.

I hope you all have a great Christmas holiday, a happy (and safe) new year. And keep writing articles!

Dennis Brown - 2¢

Administrators' newsletter – January 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2018).

Guideline and policy news

  1. G14 (new): Disambiguation pages that disambiguate only zero or one existing pages are now covered under the new G14 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-disambig}}; the text is unchanged and candidates may be found in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as unnecessary disambiguation pages.
  2. R4 (new): Redirects in the file namespace (and no file links) that have the same name as a file or redirect at Commons are now covered under the new R4 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-redircom}}; the text is unchanged.
  3. G13 (expanded): Userspace drafts containing only the default Article Wizard text are now covered under G13 along with other drafts (discussion). Such blank drafts are now eligible after six months rather than one year, and taggers continue to use {{db-blankdraft}}.

Technical news

  • Starting on December 13, the Wikimedia Foundation security team implemented new password policy and requirements. Privileged accounts (administrators, bureaucrats, checkusers, oversighters, interface administrators, bots, edit filter managers/helpers, template editors, et al.) must have a password at least 10 characters in length. All accounts must have a password:
  1. At least 8 characters in length
  2. Not in the 100,000 most popular passwords (defined by the Password Blacklist library)
  3. Different from their username
User accounts not meeting these requirements will be prompted to update their password accordingly. More information is available on MediaWiki.org.
  • Blocked administrators may now block the administrator that blocked them. This was done to mitigate the possibility that a compromised administrator account would block all other active administrators, complementing the removal of the ability to unblock oneself outside of self-imposed blocks. A request for comment is currently in progress to determine whether the blocking policy should be updated regarding this change.
  • {{Copyvio-revdel}} now has a link to open the history with the RevDel checkboxes already filled in.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Accounts continue to be compromised on a regular basis. Evidence shows this is entirely due to the accounts having the same password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately.
  • Around 22% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 20% in June 2018. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless of whether you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Maybe worth heading this off at the pass?

Hi Dennis, how's the new year treating you? I noticed a situation I thought you might want to be appraised (or in the alternative, a situation you may -not- really want to be appraised of but which may nevertheless benefit from your input). It involves a contributor you indeffed about ten months back by the username of Born2cycle. A few days back, I was bot summoned to an RfC that is basically functioning as an end-run on an RM that was hosted in November; there's more than a little bit of WP:IDHT at work with regard to the OP (of both the previous RM and the current RfC), who is not B2C, but basically I think that user is operating in good faith and that the discussion is likely to end in a consensus for the status quo before too long, at which point they will hopefully drop the matter for good.

But as the discussion has worn on, I began to notice some ever-so-slightly concerning behaviour out of another participant (that is to say, Born2Cycle). I decided to check their block log, at which point I became aware of the not-too-distant indef (undone three months later by another admin willing to give B2C another chance) and followed the link you provided to the discussion that resulted in the block, whereupon I discovered that RM discussions are pretty much their bugbear and the source of a lot of community consternation about their behaviour.

Now, I should be clear that nothing they have said or done so far strikes me as over-the-line WP:disruptive, but when looking at what is beginning to transpire on the talk page and comparing it against the community record at the AE discussion, I'm concerned that there is a slow wind-up to the same kind of tendentious editing and bludgeoning that has apparently previously brought them to ANI and AE on numerous occasions; 8 of the last 10 posts on the talk page come from B2C and the most recent reads a little like a suggestion that other editors are commenting in bad faith. I may be jumping the gun here--they seem mostly civil (if a little bludgeony), but since civil POV pushing has typified numerous of the complaints against them before...well I just thought the situation might benefit from your eyes on it, just in case it does turn more truly disruptive. Snow let's rap 10:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Dennis, thanks for the ping. We did have an email discussion about the block; I don't recall all the details but I think it was about a month into that block I ended after ~ 3 mos. I've just started looking into this and haven't seen much of a problem yet – I just have two immediate points to make: (1) the RfC was started by another long-term editor, not Born2Cycle, and it was started a month after a requested move started by the same other editor was closed with unanimous opposition. (2) Born2Cycle does have at least one other major editorial interest on Wikipedia besides the requested moves process – vehicular cycling, i.e. bicycling in traffic. This article is highly relevant to that interest as it is about a woman being killed by a (self-driving) (Uber) car while she was walking across a four-lane road, pushing her bicycle. The boundaries between RfCs and RMs are somewhat fuzzy; generally RMs are about matters of less meta-importance and are closed after a week (though it's not unusual for a contested RM to remain open for a month or more). RfCs are generally about matters of more meta-significance and remain open for a month (though it's not unusual for them to "snow close" much sooner than that). Occasionally these two processes merge; albeit clumsily. There's a section about this matter on my bot's talk page. This is an open matter that's never been conslusively resolved. On the page linked to, the discussion seems mostly productive and civil, and B2C's comments seem to be more about matters relating to the accident itself, and not specifically about the title of the article. I'll read some more though, to see if there's something I missed on this first look. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:15, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Wbm1058: for what it's worth, I still don't think any behaviour there has yet crossed the line into the massively disruptive; B2C has made nearly as many comments as the other seven editors there put together, which is surely bludgeon-ish and indicative of the issues I saw notated at the AE that led to the block, but that's mostly the extent of it so far. And looking at the !votes and the fairly obvious outcome called for under policy, I suspect the discussion is likely to resolve without too many issues. Nevertheless, I'm glad an admin is giving the situation a once- or twice-over, just in case--thanks for taking the time. Snow let's rap 01:39, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
@Snow Rise: I've added my opinions to that discussion now; hoping that helps to conclusively resolve the matter. @Born2Cycle: FYI, we've been talking about you here. Please follow your self-imposed restiction that I quoted when unblocking you by restraining from further comment on the Herzberg death. I wouldn't want to see you inadvertently step on any unspoken "third rails of Wikipedia" ;o) wbm1058 (talk) 16:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Socking?

Hallo Dennis, It's your fault I started looking at this so ...

I think there may be some sockpuppetry going on.

You nominated Skipp A. H. Williamson for AfD here on simple non-notability grounds. The deletion was quickly but mal-formedly opposed by User:New but motivated, who has 100 edits.

I saw the article on a list of Women-related AfDs, had a look, disagreed with you, put a bit of work into tidying up the article. When I went to create a redirect from Skipp Williamson, the obvious title, I found a back history of 3 previous creations one deleted as A7, the other two as re-creations by blocked User:Mamadoutadioukone (See theirSPI archive). As the last re-creation was in March 2017 and the article includes an Oct 2017 source, clearly not an exact reproduction. I AGFd and left it.

Had noticed that the creating editor User:Rmarsden hadn't edited in the last 5 years, and that their previous editing history had a lot involving Telstra and similar titles.

The creating editor then opposed deletion ... and malformed their opposition in just the same way as "New but motivated", using slanted quotes instead of straight to try to bolden the "Keep", and not handling indentation well. Coincidence?

Then had a look at User:New but motivated: hadn't edited since July 2017, then in Dec 2018 started Draft:Partners in Performance - Williamson's company. It was CSDd and restored - see User_talk:RHaworth#PIP (and pinging @RHaworth: for info). And their earlier editing history includes ... Telstra.

I'm not an expert on SPI, but this all seems somewhat fishy. Any thoughts? Possibly one of your SPI-minded talk-page watchers would like to pick this up?

The sad thing is that I think Skipp Williamson really does look notable. If the article gets deleted I might re-start it from the sources available. PamD 11:37, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Hi there. It's a bit much to be accused simply because I might not be that familiar with Wikipedia formatting, to be honest. And, Telstra is a huge company with lots of interest in Australia, so I think you are adding a lot of conjecture here. Decision on this article needs to be on merit, not "formatting" errors. Thanks.

New but motivated (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Understood, Dennis, sorry to bother you. I read the "not" that I think you missed out in that first sentence! (Or is this another weird Americanism, like "I could care less" for British "I couldn't care less"?) PamD 16:51, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
(tpw) Hi PamD, I think that I need to point out one error in your message above: Both of the incorrectly-formatted keeps were added by Rmarsden here. We can certainly look into it in a case at SPI if you choose to file one, but that bit of evidence is now moot. Cheers —DoRD (talk)​ 17:08, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Ah, thanks DoRD: that makes a great difference, thank you for spotting it and pointing it out. It did't occur to me to check the edit history for the integrity of that "Keep". Yup, ignore the above - apologies to New but motivated, but it did seem very strange, especially given the context that articles on this subject had previous murky history (and when commenting on an AfD discussion it's conventional and useful to start with a bolded Keep, Delete, or whatever). @Rmarsden: Please learn to use straight quotes, not slanted quotes, throughout Wikipedia. Thanks. Sorry about this, Dennis - enjoy the weekend. PamD 17:21, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

ANI Thread Archiving

Hi–About your recent 1CA at ANI here, I noticed the edit summary refers to archiving the "Rollback tool abuse / 3RR" thread (posted by a now-blocked IP), but it looks like a different thread got archived ("Warring and SPAMing..."). The "Warring..." thread had been removed earlier by the editor who was the subject of the report [14] and I restored it [15], just a couple of minutes before your 1CA. I'm not sure if you intended to archive the "Warring" thread (in which case everything is fine the way it is, and my apologies for restoring it if that wasn't the right move), or if you intended to archive the 3RR thread, in which case the wrong thread got archived. A similar 1CA bug happened the other day to someone else, and when they restored the thread, it resulted in this odd ANI report (just in case you hadn't seen it). Anyway, sorry again if my restoring that thread was a mistake or messed up what you were doing, just wanted to bring this to your attention in case it's a matter of the wrong thread getting archived. Cheers! Levivich? ! 02:02, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Module:Adjacent stations

I enjoy a rhetorical flourish as much as the next fellow, but would you consider withdrawing your comment as far comparisons to recent snowfall are concerned? It doesn't advance matters, leaving aside whether it accurately characterizes the participants. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 00:28, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

  • No. The simple solution is restore the module via WP:BRD and have an RFC on it. Once it is reverted, it is up to the reverting party to start a discussion, as much as the person who initially changed it. If you don't like bold changes he makes (I have no opinion), then follow BRD and start an RFC is you need to. This is how you force it to a discussion whether someone like it or not, by opening it up to a larger audience, so a consensus can form. Now, if the RFC clearly closes as $x and he tries to edit against that consensus, THEN an admin can do something. It isn't enough to just complain, you need to demonstrate a consensus, and an RFC is the best and most accepted way to do that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:37, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure what all this has to do with casting aspersions on all editors involved, which is how your comment reads, but I sense I'm wasting our time here so I'll let it go. Mackensen (talk) 17:07, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
      • I never said anyone was casting aspersions, nor was I. I did point out his particular problems, I didn't single anyone else out. How you got that from my comment is beyond me. I said all parties were guilty of not trying to discuss it before coming to ANI. The central problem is a content dispute, not a behavioral dispute, so go work it out on the talk page. Admin don't decide content. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:43, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2019

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

Administrator changes

added Enterprisey • JJMC89
readded BorgQueen
removed Harro5 • Jenks24 • Graft • R. Baley

Interface administrator changes

removedEnterprisey

Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment is currently open to reevaluate the activity requirements for administrators.
  • Administrators who are blocked have the technical ability to block the administrator who blocked their own account. A recent request for comment has amended the blocking policy to clarify that this ability should only be used in exceptional circumstances, such as account compromises, where there is a clear and immediate need.
  • A request for comment closed with a consensus in favor of deprecating The Sun as a permissible reference, and creating an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite it.

Technical news

  • A discussion regarding an overhaul of the format and appearance of Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is in progress (permalink). The proposed changes will make it easier to create requests for those who are not using Twinkle. The workflow for administrators at this venue will largely be unchanged. Additionally, there are plans to archive requests similar to how it is done at WP:PERM, where historical records are kept so that prior requests can more easily be searched for.

Miscellaneous

  • Voting in the 2019 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2019, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2019, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
  • A new IRC bot is available that allows you to subscribe to notifications when specific filters are tripped. This requires that your IRC handle be identified.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

The Sustainability Initiative

The Sustainability Initiative

Hello Dennis Brown: An invitation for you to check out the Sustainability Initiative, which aims to reduce the environmental impact of the Wikimedia projects. If you're interested, please consider adding your name to the list of supporters, which serves to express and denote the community's support of the initiative. Thanks for your consideration! North America1000 10:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Question about an RfC

Dennis, I was hoping you might have a suggestion for how to go about doing an RfC to discuss a name change. Several years back the article "Automobile" was changed to "Car". I wasn't involved in the discussion but was involved in a recent discussion related to the change of the category automobile to car. Under normal circumstances an article name change really only involves the article itself. However, in this case the name associated with the parent article, "car" has been used to justify changing other article and category names based on the view that one is the parent to the others. In cases where a name change may reach across more than one article where would be the best location to host a RfC and to advertise such a RfC? Would it be appropriate to note the scope of articles that might be impacted by a change in an RfC notification? Looking for suggestions before jumping into the wrong pool! Thanks, Springee (talk) 01:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

  • That is tricky. I'm not sure you can really have an RFC that covers all things named "automotive". I think you would need to break it down into smaller, definable chunks. Changes this large should probably be hosted at wikiproject automobile and advertised widely, like at the village pump and on all affected page. This is why you need a predefined set of pages to have the RFC. Then after that, individual pages (if needed) can have RM discussions using the RFC as the basis. This is a major undertaking, and I probably won't be around enough to help. I'm barely here once a week now, due to working around the clock. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2019

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
    • paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
    • checkuser-en-wp@wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2019

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

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Two more administrator accounts were compromised. Evidence has shown that these attacks, like previous incidents, were due to reusing a password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. All admins are strongly encouraged to enable two-factor authentication, please consider doing so. Please always practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
  • As a reminder, according to WP:NOQUORUM, administrators looking to close or relist an AfD should evaluate a nomination that has received few or no comments as if it were a proposed deletion (PROD) prior to determining whether it should be relisted.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Your input sought

I am considering another RfA in 2019. Next year is an Olympic year, so by this time next year I need to make a firm decision whether to participate as a media representative, as I did in 2012 and 2016. This will affect my personal and work commitments in 2019 and 2020. Given past experience of what is involved, I do not think I should accept without the admin bit. Before I even go to ORCP, I am seeking the input of a small number of people who gave well-reasoned opposes at my last RfA. I am seeking constructive feedback on my editing, and whether you feel I have addressed the concerns that you raised. I take criticism very seriously, and assure you that I will act upon it, regardless of whether I ultimately decide to initiate another RfA. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:32, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Right now, I'm so swamped in real life, I don't have to time to give it a proper consideration, as evidenced by the fact that it has been two weeks since I've even been on Wikipedia. I can't really opine on the matter because it wouldn't be fair to anyone involved. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:05, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular

Icon of a white exclamation mark within a black triangle
 Administrators must secure their accounts

The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:38, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2019

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • XTools Admin Stats, a tool to list admins by administrative actions, has been revamped to support more types of log entries such as AbuseFilter changes. Two additional tools have been integrated into it as well: Steward Stats and Patroller Stats.

Arbitration

  • In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases, the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
  • Following a formal ratification process, the arbitration policy has been amended (diff). Specifically, the two-thirds majority required to remove or suspend an arbitrator now excludes (1) the arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and (2) any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Eric Cornel

Hello, you speedily deleted Eric Cornel because the page was previously deleted per a deletion discussion. At the time Cornel did not pass NHOCKEY. However, I recreated the page yesterday because Eric Cornel now passes the WP:NHOCKEY guidelines with playing over 200 American Hockey League games.[16] Please undo the speedy deletion Joeykai (talk) 16:49, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Since it was deleted previously as an AFD, you should have created a draft and gone to Wikipedia:Deletion review, where it could be reviewed before overriding the previous AFD. That is what I would suggest doing. It has been deleted so many times, it is subject to getting WP:Salted, so I would strongly suggest you don't just recreate it in main space. Deletions that were done as a matter of community input (AFD for instance) should have community input to recreate. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:32, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for suggesting that. I have created a deletion review for Eric Cornel. Joeykai (talk) 20:12, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review for Eric Cornel

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Eric Cornel. 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. Joeykai (talk) 20:12, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2019

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

Administrator changes

removed Andonic • Consumed Crustacean • Enigmaman • Euryalus • EWS23 • HereToHelp • Nv8200pa • Peripitus • StringTheory11 • Vejvančický

CheckUser changes

removed Ivanvector

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC seeks to clarify whether WP:OUTING should include information on just the English Wikipedia or any Wikimedia project.
  • An RfC on WT:RfA concluded that Requests for adminship and bureaucratship are discussions seeking to build consensus.
  • An RfC proposal to make the templates for discussion (TfD) process more like the requested moves (RM) process, i.e. "as a clearinghouse of template discussions", was closed as successful.

Technical news

  • The CSD feature of Twinkle now allows admins to notify page creators of deletion if the page had not been tagged. The default behavior matches that of tagging notifications, and replaces the ability to open the user talk page upon deletion. You can customize which criteria receive notifications in your Twinkle preferences: look for Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria.
  • Twinkle's d-batch (batch delete) feature now supports deleting subpages (and related redirects and talk pages) of each page. The pages will be listed first but use with caution! The und-batch (batch undelete) option can now also restore talk pages.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I've emailed you

Thought I should let you know. Kurtis (talk) 02:06, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Sad

to see the post at BN; despite agreeing with the sentiments. It's profoundly sad that we are loosing our best over this and can only hope that things get fixed eventually. Best wishes, ∯WBGconverse 17:40, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Geez...pretty soon I won't recognize this place. Shearonink (talk) 17:41, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Likewise. In the words of the late Bertrand Arthur William Russell, 3rd Earl Russell, "what a right fookin' mess". Martinevans123 (talk) 17:45, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I hear you. Hope to see you back in full admin regalia eventually when things calm down. Save your T-shirt. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:48, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

We are witnessing the "Mother of All Kerfuffles". For the uninformed who don't really pay attention to who runs this place, Can someone explain, in a nutshell, what the whole Fram stuff is about? ―Buster7 ☎ 18:21, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Reply

My response is on my user page. For me, this isn't about this single case. Fram and I aren't exactly friends, but the principle is larger than the individuals involved, and my feeling about it would have been the same regardless of who the individual was. I don't expect the WMF to be moved by my words, but they are within policy of enwp as it does pertain to my work at enwp and is in no way polemic. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:47, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Respect

Just a long-time lurker paying my respects to a tremendous contributor and genuine leader of the community. While I am discouraged (but not surprised) about everything that is happening, I totally understand and completely support your decision to resign. It significantly damages the project to lose someone like you, but maybe the WMF will come to their senses when they see harm they have caused and the terrible price being paid for their lack of transparency and respect. Ironic that they call themselves a “foundation” when they are destroying the very foundation (collaboration, trust, self-governance, and transparency) of the community they serve. 2600:1012:B06E:24A0:B494:5202:4599:945D (talk) 19:06, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
I'm sorry to see that you are another editor who has reached this decision because of the WMF's action. It's sad to see our community tear itself in two over this, and with no concrete response from the WMF in two weeks, unfortunately I don't think you'll be the last to make an exit. - SchroCat (talk) 19:43, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I think you know...

...that I've always thought you were one of the best. I hope you'll be able to return soon. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

^^That was well put. I'm sorry to see you go. And thank you. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:47, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

It's a bitch that the good ones are leaving. Hopefully the foundation will come to its senses but if not, we each have to make a decision. Hope to see you back. All the best, Miniapolis 22:27, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I understand your sentiments DB. I can't thank you enough for all you have done here. Best wishes in any future editing and to you and yours in real life. MarnetteD|Talk 01:58, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
+1 - You're another great admin and it's a shame to see you go however like everyone else I completely understand why you resigned the bit, Thank you for everything you've ever done here and I genuinely mean that, I hope you return soon, Take care and I wish you all the best. –Davey2010Talk 00:54, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

A beer for you!

One day we will have this beer Dennis, one day. Drmies (talk) 01:23, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Whooooo...wow, the thought of one day we'll all have that beer... Here's to "Cheers" some day. Shearonink (talk) 01:40, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

About this

We are not subjects of the WMF. We do not work for you. We are not beneath you. We owe you nothing; we are volunteers. We are trying to work WITH you to create something special, but you have to give us the same respect you demand for yourselves.

Well said. -- llywrch (talk) 17:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

+1. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:36, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

leaving the project?

Not sure if you are leaving the project. I hope you stay around. Regards, —usernamekiran(talk) 23:10, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Honestly, retiring (or not) isn't something I've thought about at this time. If this is how they decide things will be done in the future, then I'm not interested in mopping up for them. I joined (and walked the gauntlet of RFA) to be an equal part of a Project, not just free labor. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dennis_Brown/Archive_43&oldid=1259694088"