User talk:Dennis Brown/Archive 48

Global IPBE
Just to note to verify I'm requesting global IPBE. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Is 2024010510009677 yours? — xaosflux  Talk 00:35, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * , I don't know but probably. I don't have OTRS access.  I did make a request by emailing the stewards directly from my known email address. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 06:35, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Dennis Brown ok seems fine (we can't verify your email address, but you should have got an autoresponse to your email) - it's the same topic as above so seems fine. Request is enqueued. — xaosflux  Talk 10:27, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I did get the auto response. I'm not rushing, so that is fine.  Just trying to get my ducks in a row so I can access the other wikis.  I don't do a lot over at the others, but I can't do anything now except here at enwp.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 13:09, 6 January 2024 (UTC)


 * , been 5 days. I'm not rushing, but just curious what the average turn around time is for this.  I've not received any notification except the initial email and the ping from meta.  Dennis Brown 2&cent; 07:44, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's enqueued at SRGP so it has visibility. Generally the "not done's" get done pretty quick but the discretionary grants such as yours take longer. There is currently a backlog of stewards requests via meta/utrs/vrt in the hundreds. If there is a specific project you need to do something on immediately you may ask that project's admins to do a local grant in the meantime. (e.g. I just gave you a local grant on metawiki using my admin-hat there). — xaosflux  Talk 10:09, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Got it, thank you, . I was just curious more than anything, figured it would take 2 or 3 days is all.  I assume they do a CU, etc.  I'm still busy here in my new home, got a Philippines drivers license today, my ACR (registered foreigner) card today, but over the next few months, I want to get more involved in learning the language, and doing some minor edits in Tagalog and Cebuano, in part to learn some of the grammar structure.  Have a good friend to look over my shoulder, and she speaks them both natively.  Dennis Brown 2&cent; 10:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Administrator Conduct Case 2024-1: Mzajac opened
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Administrator Conduct Case 2024-1: Mzajac. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Administrator Conduct Case 2024-1: Mzajac/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 30, 2024, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Administrator Conduct Case 2024-1: Mzajac/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 17:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

New message from Red-tailed hawk
— Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 04:47, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

how to admin
Blocks should not be used: to punish;

Administrators should take special care when dealing with new users. Beginning editors are often unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy and convention, and so their behavior may initially appear to be disruptive. Responding to these new users with excessive force can discourage them from editing in the future (see Wikipedia:Do not bite the newcomers).

"I won't discuss content with you because, as I stated, I don't care about the content, only behavior" - Dennis Brown 2024 Asingleshardofconsciousnes (talk) 10:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Please take this to your own user talk page, not here. Since you are seeking an unblock for that one page, it is inappropriate to address it on Yamla's page, my page, and your talk page.  Dennis Brown 2&cent; 11:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Motion proposed to suspend the Mzajac case
Arbitrators have proposed a motion to suspend the Mzajac case for three months at the proposed decision page. During this period, Mzajac will be temporarily desysopped, see Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mzajac/Proposed decision for further information. Comments are welcome at the proposed decision talk page. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:30, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Appealing T-ban
Hello. I've requested appeal of my GenSex t-ban. -- GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

G4 deletion of Paul Laviolette
Dennis,

I'm looking at the version of Paul Laviolette at the time that it was speedied, and also the versions at Paul LaViolette at the time they were nominated for deletion (2nd nomination, 3rd nomination) and actually deleted (2nd nomination, 3rd nomination).

I don't think that this was a valid WP:G4, as there were substantial differences between the versions that were deleted at AfD and the version that was speedied. I genuinely think this was re-created de novo, 14ish years after the article was most recently taken to AfD. And some of the sources in the speedied article (e.g. the paper Scientific Misconduct: Three Forms that Directly Harm Others as the Modus Operandi of Mill’s Tyranny of the Prevailing Opinion") were published after the most recent deletion discussion.

There are some copyproblems with the article content (copy-pasting from the aforementioned paper, for example), but I don't think they rise to a WP:G12 level, either. There are also some problems with a good bit of uncited material. But I don't think this warrants a speedy inasmuch as it warrants draftification and removal of the copyproblem. Through that lens, are you willing to restore the article to draftspace, sans the "censorship" section? — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 05:14, 1 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm on my mobile right now, using my Alt account but please feel free to modify my actions as you see fit. Farmer Brown - 2&cent; 03:59, 2 February 2024 (UTC) Farmer Brown - 2&cent; 03:59, 2 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I undeleted, renamed to preferred name, and sent to Draft:Paul LaViolette. I still have some misgivings, but respect your judgement in the matter. Since you are familiar with the copyright issues, I will leave that to you, rather than try to fix it myself, as I'm a bit short of time to comb through it right now.  It still needs to go through DRV, but that is another matter. Dennis Brown 2&cent; 04:52, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for letting me know. I've gone through the article and tried to clean it up as best I can. I'm noticing that there are some potential WP:PSCI-related issues in the draft, so I am going to keep an eye on it as it develops. I'm fairly convinced that the individual is notable, though. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 05:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * , did you notice this? I'm staying out of it, since I had reverted a previous block, but in addition to the copyright issues (and bordering on edit warring), it might help if you took a look.  This is the behavior I spoke of earlier, rather aggressive.  Dennis Brown 2&cent; 12:26, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The aggressive behavior shows that an indefinite block was warranted, albeit for a different reason that the first block was for. My apologies for taking up so much of your time with the unblock request. —  Red-tailed sock (Red-tailed hawk's nest) 16:04, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * We both learned something. Farmer Brown - 2&cent; 21:19, 2 February 2024 (UTC) Farmer Brown - 2&cent; 21:19, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Logging in to explain further . I was right that something was wrong, and I still think he is a sock of someone, perhaps of the account I named, which probably has other socks that weren't caught (likely) or meatpuppetry (very possible).  However, you were correct that evidence connecting the two was very weak, weak enough to warrant you questioning the block, so I don't blame you a bit for doing so.  For me, it was a gut call, and gut calls aren't always welcomed here, and they aren't always right, so it was a calculated risk.  I have no problem with your questioning my call.  Even while taking action (both the delete and the block), I knew it might be questioned, but I'm a little old school, and willing to take the risk, but also willing to back out and let someone else handle the case if they have legitimate questions regarding my actions. So, realistically, I did jump the gun a bit, and your actions were perfectly fine, thus nothing to apologize about.  Again, we both learned something. Dennis Brown 2&cent; 21:45, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2024
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2024).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Red-tailed hawk · Robertsky
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Ameliorate! · Ancheta Wis · Anthony Bradbury (deceased) · Cobi · Ev · Moondyne · Worm That Turned

Bureaucrat changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Worm That Turned



CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Wugapodes

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Enterprisey · Izno

Guideline and policy news
 * An RfC about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback.

Technical news
 * Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size.

Arbitration
 * Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee adopted a new enforcement restriction on January 4, 2024, wherein the Committee may apply the 'Reliable source consensus-required restriction' to specified topic areas.
 * Community feedback is requested for a draft to replace the "Information for administrators processing requests" section at WP:AE.

Miscellaneous
 * Voting in the 2024 Steward elections will begin on 06 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 27 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
 * A vote to ratify the charter for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is open till 2 February 2024, 23:59:59 (UTC) via Secure Poll. All eligible voters within the Wikimedia community have the opportunity to either support or oppose the adoption of the U4C Charter and share their reasons. The details of the voting process and voter eligibility can be found here.
 * Community Tech has made some preliminary decisions about the future of the Community Wishlist Survey. In summary, they aim to develop a new, continuous intake system for community technical requests that improves prioritization, resource allocation, and communication regarding wishes. Read more
 * The Unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in February 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with Unreferenced. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Hamish Ross
I'm not sure how to set up a SPI, but  is almost certainly Hamish Ross on another set of alt accounts. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 07:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Plus the other rapid fire edit accounts. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 07:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I've blocked 4 5 I think. We need something besides playing whackamole.  checkuser needed Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 07:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I ran some checks, it is Hamish Ross. I didn't see any others that weren't blocked. Some measures are in place already, not much else to do. Spicy (talk) 10:06, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you please semi WP:ANI? After semi, watch out for auto-confirmed gamed socks, which may require ECP. --Stylez995 (talk) 07:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I would rather not, to be honest, for reasons that might not be obvious. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 07:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * put semi on it, which is fine. I wouldn't have and would have let him run out of old socks (2017) or get tuckered out, but that's ok.  It wasn't hard to contain him, like a hamster in a ball, since he stayed in one place.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 08:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I see there's no recent socking after you blocked the last sock since 07:59 UTC. Hopefully, CheckUser should eradicate the sleepers. Thanks for watching the page and whacking those socks. Stylez995 (talk) 08:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That is due to the semiprotection by Kinu. That's ok, I didn't have a problem playing whackamole and letting them use up some accounts.  Easy to hit a couple of buttons, I was playing Bejeweled in between whacks.  Easy stuff.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 08:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Actually, seems like they are farming some autoconfirmed permissions (or just the one?): Special:Contribs/A really cool tour. – 2804:F14:80C6:A301:D4DC:46FF:5933:EF85 (talk) 08:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The mass delete tool makes short work of it. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 08:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Editor experience invitation
Hi Dennis Brown :) I'm looking for people to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss 🍀  (talk) 09:30, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2024
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2024).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Sdkb · The Night Watch
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg East718 · Isabelle Belato · Mzajac · Staecker · Stan Shebs · Sugarfish · Tamzin



Bureaucrat changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg SilkTork

Guideline and policy news
 * Phase I of the 2024 RfA review is now open for participation. Editors are invited to review, comment on, and propose improvements to the requests for adminship process.
 * Following an RfC, the inactivity requirement for the removal of the interface administrator right increased from 6 months to 12 months.

Technical news
 * The mobile site history pages now use the same HTML as the desktop history pages.

Miscellaneous
 * The 2024 appointees for the Ombuds commission are だ＊ぜ, AGK, Ameisenigel, Bennylin, Daniuu, Doǵu, Emufarmers, Faendalimas, MdsShakil, Minorax, Nehaoua, Renvoy and RoySmith as members, with Vermont serving as steward-observer.
 * Following the 2024 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Ajraddatz, Albertoleoncio, EPIC, JJMC89, Johannnes89, Melos and Yahya.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Conflict of interest management: Case opened
Hello ,

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 20, 2024, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee, &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 20:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

New Pages Patrol newsletter April 2024
Hello ,

Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to, who led with over 2,300 points.

Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.

Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.

It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!

2023 Awards won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.

Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.

Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.

Reminders:
 * You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Pages Patrol Discord.
 * Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
 * To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

RD2 deletion on Bruce Lehrmann
I note you used your administrative powers to delete one of my contributions on the grounds of "Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material". I must say I disagree that my contributions could be described as such. Can you revert your deletion or explain why not? 116.255.53.19 (talk) 16:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I do think this was likely an error. The revision deleted was not one that added the victim's name, and revisions on either end of it still include the name. I'm ready to reverse the deletion, but I'd love to hear from DB first. Incidentally, IP116, RD2 is not just for grossly insulting material, but also for BLP violations, which is the reason that was included in the deletion log. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It was a mistake. I had gone in and researched afterwards and I was trying to make heads or tails but didn't have a chance to action it before it got late here. Farmer Brown - 2&cent; (alt: Dennis Brown) 22:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅, sorry about the delay. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

ANI thread that needs attention
Hi Dennis Brown, if you have the free time, could you have a look at and respond to Afghan.Records ANI thread? It's been open for over 10 days now, there is a pretty clear consensus in favour of a block and no admin has ever responded to it yet. Thanks in advance! — AP 499D25  (talk)  03:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 03:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Twoallbeefpattiesspecialsaucelettucecheesepicklesonionsonasesameseedbun
Forgive me as I might not be the most familiar with requests for decrease in protection. But from what seems logical to me based on the WP:Protection Policy, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia than anyone can edit. I, nor anyone, should be hindered by full protection (as its been in the past), for a redirect where protection was never really warranted in the first place. Instead of "why should full protection be removed", it seems more appropriate to ask "why should full protection be kept" and there's absolutely nothing I can think to say for it, besides the fact that an administrator felt like protecting it and then washing their hands of the matter (based on the DRV).

Multiple edit requests have already been made since 2017, which could have been avoided through reduced protection. Personally, I would like to add an "R from different spelling" rcat to the title, yet there's zero reason why I shouldn't be able to just uncontroversially do it myself instead of forcing an admin to oversee it, which the multiple past edit requests at this title have already been multiple too many. "Not visible" doesn't really apply to this redirect when it's tagged with the most relevant rcats (with slogans itself being highly visible due to being discussed as a well-condensed-yet-unnecessarily-bloated set of redirects, in the process of being cleaned out), and would be instantly viewable via the New Page Feed if something ever comes up. If a change ever affects the redirect, it will be the only page in the queue with a 2006 creation date, so that's not as much of an issue as it might have used to be, as a lot of people (myself included) monitor redirect changes. Needlessly protecting redirects just because one admin 7 years ago thinks they'll never have to be touched or edited with rcats ever again, is not a good practice, especially in cases where the future for the redirect is not obvious and rcats themselves change. This is not an alternate spelling of "Big Mac", but instead targets a section on a page that can easily be renamed or moved, forcing this redirect to be updated accordingly every time it happens. This is also not like "Obama" where the outcome has been talked to death about and needed to be protected to prevent vandalism. This is just a page, of dubious usefulness, that has teetered the line of being kept and being deleted on multiple occasions. While I would like to make a change and add an rcat, there seems to be no justification for keeping the protection; in my mind that's plenty enough explanation to reduce, as "no protection" is the default / status quo outcome according to the protection policy, for when there is no reason to have a page keep its protection. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Specifically, per WP:UNPROTPOL, "administrators may unprotect a page if the reason for its protection no longer applies, a reasonable period has elapsed, and there is no consensus that continued protection is necessary". The original protection was strange at best and seems to have arisen from the previous 2017 undeletion, where it's since been discussed at RfD and DRV on multiple counts. No longer applies, reasonable period elapsed, and no reason to suggest that protection is still necessary.
 * Also from UNPROTPOL, "[Full protection is appropriate for] pages with persistent disruption from extended confirmed accounts." This rationale never applied as there was no disruption, much less from extended confirmed accounts. The only evidence of redirect removal was from the otherwise valid CSD G4 tag (as it was recreated following an AfD that closed as delete). Utopes (talk / cont) 00:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)


 * When I consider unprotecting an article, I look at a few things: How many people are likely to watch it? (fewer watchers means higher possibility of vandalism going unnoticed). How likely is it going to be edited? What is the likelihood that any edit would be vandalism rather than constructive?  How difficult is it for editors requesting edits to get those edits considered?  What is the risk vs. reward?  Then I try to apply what I think is the community consensus, the expectation, for the protection.  After all, it isn't about my opinion, it is my best guess of what the greater community would choose if it were to be put to a vote.  In this case, I felt like the community would say "It isn't likely to be edited, since that is a trademarked slogan from a long time ago, so the value of making it so anyone could edit it is less than the value of preventing vandalism in an environment of increasing numbers of articles and decreasing numbers of admins and patrolling editors."   Now, that isn't a guarantee that this would be the result, but it is my best judgement, so that is the basis for my decline.  At the end of the day, the real policies aren't the words written down, they are the consensus of what the community (as a whole) would prefer to do, and the written words are just there for convenience.  I still maintain that articles, templates and such that are very unlikely to ever be edited but pose a ripe target for vandalism, and are already protected, probably should stay protected because there is virtually no benefit in unprotecting them compared to the risk, and that most editors in the community would support that.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 01:09, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * To address the hypotheticals in the order they were raised, this page is already in the top ~0.1% echelon of attention given to redirects, due to people having eyes on titles that recur in-and-out of multiple deletion venues. Most redirects have zero incoming links, while this specific title has been featured in a half dozen focused-discussions in WP space. I have already given an example of a change that I was planning on making, i.e. adjusting the rcats after an RfD closure, which I'd very well imagine to be uncontroversial to do and otherwise a net positive. This page has never been vandalized over the decade this existed pre-deletion, from 2006 to 2016, so there is zero basis to suggest that vandalism is a fear over any other title. There has never been a disruptive edit to this page, so I'm unsure why so much weight is given to that perspective. There is no evidence of any "risk" at this title, and the reward is that the third pillar isn't purposely obstructed after the existence of a no-longer-necessary full protection was brought to light at RfPP. Wikipedia is a work in progress; even the smallest of pages can and should be "mercilessly edited" by anyone, to inch closer towards a better encyclopedia.
 * Redirects in general are less likely to be edited, sure, as it's an area that not everyone will see. But keeping an article protected longer than it needs to be is a disservice to the core tenents of Wikipedia being a place where anyone can edit, across pages big and small. Especially if the reason is "it's already protected, and because there probably won't be more than one edit a year, it shall be upon admins alone to maintain this title forever; they can handle the edit requests whenever they happen". It being protected already does not matter if the reasons do not hold up today, much less hold up 6 years ago. There was no policy basis for the initial protection. Years has passed, and the non-existent reasons for the initial protection have expired, surely. I really fail to see the reason for preventing people from editing the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, at an otherwise innocent title, all to prevent the tiny chance of vandalism on a page that has never been vandalized prior. (If someone really wanted to vandalize, this protection wouldn't prevent them from going for any of the other pages they could hide disruption on among several others, that are totally unprotected and never have been, nor has there been disruption from what I could find.) Utopes (talk / cont) 03:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand what you are saying, and I will admit that FULL protection is probably overkill, but I still feel some kind of protection makes sense, so I have reduced it to semi-protection. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 03:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2024
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2024).



Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Kbdank71 · Kosack · NrDg · TLSuda

Guideline and policy news Technical news Arbitration Miscellaneous
 * An RfC is open to convert all current and future community discretionary sanctions to (community designated) contentious topics procedure.
 * The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes.
 * An arbitration case has been opened to look into "the intersection of managing conflict of interest editing with the harassment (outing) policy".
 * Editors are invited to sign up for The Core Contest, an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve vital and other core articles on Wikipedia.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Conflict of interest editing by Dennis Brown. Thank you. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 13:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Ha! Just saw this. I'm pretty sure I also own some fraction of AT&T, tucked away in some index fund in my 401k. ~Awilley (talk) 23:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

New sock
Hi, you sockblocked User:NonRevert this morning. Immediately afterwards, User:Sukshy was created and continued editing the same new article Rangiya Municipal Board. Clear WP:DUCK, can you block them too? Fram (talk) 12:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * , I was actually roaming around enwp when that happened and was about to block them myself, but another admin beat me to the punch by a couple of minutes. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 00:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Suspicious IP
An IP address "117.193.205.235" keeps editing Virudhunagar Lok Sabha constituency again and again by using "winning candidate" template for a specific candidate instead of normal "candidate" template (election results due in 4 June 2024). Action required. Thank you. SamsonM2 (talk) 10:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I was just the one time, so I'm hesitant to take drastic actions unless it is a pattern, but I will keep an eye out. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * please check the page again. The same user (IP slightly different) doing disruptive edit. SamsonM2 (talk) 06:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Blocking isn't an option, given the range, but I've protected it for a week. It's a bit of a borderline case, but the different IPs are getting reverted for various valid reasons, enough to protect it.   After the protection expires, if the problem comes back, go to WP:RFPP and request protection be extended, but only after several edits that are problematic.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 06:18, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. SamsonM2 (talk) 06:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:CIR
Hello! I have noticed that you have recently warned a user for dumping ground edits on []. I would like to tell you also that I have flagged them for this sloppy referencing on 2024 constitutional reform attempts in the Philippines: [], which they have done twice and to which I have replied on your note to their talk page. I would like to let you know that if they do not learn from this mistake then I will report them to ANI, given their history of repeated warnings. Borgenland (talk) 13:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think English skills might be a problem, which is why I pointed to the two main PH wikis. I don't think they mean any harm, but it does get tiresome cleaning up.  Since I left that message, I would just say wait a week and see what happens, but hopefully they will get the message, and focus on areas where they can help, instead of what they have been doing.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 05:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Ford–GM 10-speed automatic transmission Citation
Hello, I saw you reverted my source edit for #12 on the Ford-GM 10-speed page and wanted ask would the first edit of the web.archive of the png be the same as the link to the Camaro6 forum? The table from the web.archive links to that site and the phot is on the post. I only ask as I recently found out someone linked that table and I made it on the source. I am new so would love to learn, cheers! Bumbleboy92 (talk) 06:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The problem is the website, Camaro6, which is a blog. If you check out WP:RS (our policy on what is a "reliable source", you find we really try to avoid blogs and forums except in exceptional circumstances.  Mags like Hot Rod, Car and Driver, etc are perfectly fine.  The difference is that the mags have an editorial staff and vet their articles more carefully.  Blogs tend to be "one man shows" and so the reliability of the information is dubious, and often, incorrect.  This is because there is no fact checking.  Not a big deal, this is how you learn, so take no offense to the revert.  The only time we are lenient about blogs and forums is if it is a from the company itself and the account is verified to be them, and even then, we would qualify the statement in the text of the article. ie:  "CEO Bob Smith said on Twitter that they expect to increase horsepower by 10hp next year", instead of just saying "they are increasing horsepower next year".  One of the principle ideas behind Wikipedia is that it is better to have LESS information that is WP:Verifiable than to have more that is not sources or poorly sourced.  So the end result is that articles are often missing some information, but you can rely on the information that is there, being factual.  So reverts happen.  The best thing to do when you are reverted... is exactly what you did, start a discussion if you have questions.  Try to not unrevert a revert, unless you know the revert was a mistake.  Revering multiple times typically gets you blocked for edit warring here.  So you are on the right path to learning and helping by coming here and just asking, although using the talk page of the article is where you would normally bring up the issue. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 00:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2024
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2024).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Nyttend
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg JohnOwens · Killiondude · MelanieN · Nihonjoe

Bureaucrat changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Nihonjoe



CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Joe Roe

Oversight changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg GeneralNotability

Guideline and policy news
 * Phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship review has concluded. Several proposals have passed outright and will proceed to implementation, including creating a discussion-only period (3b) and administrator elections (13) on a trial basis. Other successful proposals, such as creating a reminder of civility norms (2), will undergo further refinement in Phase II. Proposals passed on a trial basis will be discussed in Phase II, after their trials conclude. Further details on specific proposals can be found in the full report.

Technical news
 * Partial action blocks are now in effect on the English Wikipedia. This means that administrators have the ability to restrict users from certain actions, including uploading files, moving pages and files, creating new pages, and sending thanks. T280531

Arbitration
 * The arbitration case Conflict of interest management has been closed.

Miscellaneous
 * This may be a good time to reach out to potential nominees to ask if they would consider an RfA.
 * A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in May 2024 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 15,000 articles awaiting review. Sign up here to participate!
 * Voting for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) election is open until 9 May 2024. Read the voting page on Meta-Wiki and cast your vote here!

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

 * You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. 

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

BLP violations on Martin Nowak's page
Hello I saw that you protected the article about Martin Nowak. I have a couple of concerns that I addressed in depth on the Administrator’s userboard, concerning BLP policy violations. The page, as it now appears, contains some factually inaccurate information and a biased POV. I would like to request that the inaccurrate information is corrected, and the discussion revised in order to also reflect sources that are favourable to Nowak. I am surprised and concerned that the page has been protected in this state, considering how clear Wiki’s policies are on libellous or biased information about living persons.

In summary, these are the sentences that are straight up false, and contradicted by the sources cited in their support:

1) "...as a punishment for having provided an office, keycard, and passcode, and for allowing Epstein free and unlimited access to the university's campus ten years after his conviction for sex crimes" The Harvard report only mentions a keycard. Nowak was not blamed for "providing an office" as this was known and approved by the university. No passcode is ever discussed. PED was not on university campus. Thus Epstein never had "free and unlimited access to the university campus".

2) "The PED was funded with a total nine million dollars from the Jeffrey Epstein VI Foundation, [15]" - this sentence is false, as the Harvard report says the university received 6.5 million in 2003 for the support of PED".

3) "In 2020, the university placed Nowak on paid academic leave for violation of campus policies including professional conduct and campus access" - this sentence is misleading - the three specific charges against Nowak are discussed in the following source: https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2021/4/14/lessig-epstein-at-harvard/. This article is not cited anywhere in the page, and not discussed at all, although it provides important information favorable Nowak. 2A01:E0A:808:6FB0:9050:6959:CFE3:2C60 (talk) 06:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This really needs to reported at WP:BLPN. If a BLP violation isn't obvious on the surface (ie: calling someone a murderer, saying they are dead/alive when it is obvious they aren't, etc) and the "violation" requires analysis or interpretation of the sources, then the decision should be made by the community rather than a single admin.  This is particularly true if there are multiple sources saying different things, which may or may not be the case. For me to go in an enforce a particular version of the article in this circumstance is really more than the community wants admins to do as a unilateral action. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 01:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that it should not be your role as an admin to enforce unilaterally one version of the article. Although, you de facto did just this by freezing editing on the article.
 * There is already an ongoing dispute on the BLPN. One of the editors refuses to add two sources that are favourable to Nowak, so it seems like we are reaching an impasse.
 * I will be honest here – I am not an editor of Wiki, don’t even have an account (although might create one). A few weeks ago I went down this rabbit hole after Nowak released his new book. It is frustrating to see someone abusing his status as an editor, and moreover that I cannot do much, since I am not an established user.
 * I do hope that more people will be attracted to the topic and we can start a discussion with more voices. 88.156.136.159 (talk) 11:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * What I did was simply protect the article so it couldn't be edited by unregistered editors with less than a week of experience, because all the problems were coming from those same editors. There are different levels we can protect the article at, this was the softest type of protection I could use.  This doesn't mean I have a preferred version of the article, or agree or disagree with the edits.  It only means that I recognize that most of the abuse, the problems, the warring, whatever, are coming from that particular subset of editors.  This is a very common mechanism to protect the integrity of articles.  IP address are not "people", they rotate, they change, many people can be using the same IP address at the same time with NAT.  This is why they are often a source of abuse, and why we protect sometimes.  Anyone who registers and has a dozen or so edits and has been here a week won't be affected by the protection, only unregistered IP editors and "drive by" editors who joined only to make an edit to that article. If it is at BLPN, then that is where it needs to be.  The people that make decisions about what is and isn't ok to add to articles are NOT admins, they are all the regular editors.  Admins simply are trusted with special tools that allow us to do certain functions under certain cirumstances.  We don't "decide" content any more than anyone else.  Because I have the tools, I have to be careful to NOT inject my opinions in articles where I am acting as an admin.  I can't do both to an article: I can either "vote" on what is the right version, or I can act on behalf of the community using the special tools in an objective manner.  Policy dictates this.  Admin aren't "super editors", we are janitors, basically.  Trusted to use the tools under strict guidelines. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 12:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that you have a point here and that's why I created an account to be easily identifiable (especially that I travel quite often and connect from different locations).
 * On the other hand, it is strange to automatically consider "old users" as more trustworthy even if they clearly show personal emotional involvement and lack of objectiveness.
 * You say you blocked the page to wait for the community response and you do not take sides. Nevertheless you decided to block it WITH the text violating the BLP rules in the very moment when the release of the new Nowak's book spurred increased interest in his biography. It is just the way I came across this text while checking if this new piece of work has already been included in the wikipedia profile. Sim(e)Xavi (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, it is strange to automatically consider "old users" as more trustworthy even if they clearly show personal emotional involvement and lack of objectiveness.
 * You say you blocked the page to wait for the community response and you do not take sides. Nevertheless you decided to block it WITH the text violating the BLP rules in the very moment when the release of the new Nowak's book spurred increased interest in his biography. It is just the way I came across this text while checking if this new piece of work has already been included in the wikipedia profile. Sim(e)Xavi (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I didn't block the page, I protected it. Unless reverting vandalism or an obvious BLP violation, admin can't revert back to a preferred version. I just explained this above. Established editors are more trustworthy. 80% of all vandalism comes from IPs, for instance. I will suggest you tread carefully once you can edit the article, and use the article talk page now instead of just reverting later. WP:Edit warring always results in a block. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Renaming

 * Please keep the discussion on your own talk page. Farmer Brown - 2&cent; (alt: Dennis Brown) 21:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Quick question: How do you feel about Draft:CaseOh (userfied AND drafted after AfD)? JFHJr (㊟) 02:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing those out. I've CSDs using a little common sense and WP:IAR, which some might take exception with.  I would ask them to email if they have questions, as part of the reasoning shouldn't be disclosed here.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 02:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your help. JFHJr (㊟) 02:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I did email. No response to me necessary. I just wanted to clarify that "your" meant "our," ...not your individual said possessum. All of our possessums. Sorry if my wording alarmed in any way. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 06:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)