Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

	The Admin's Barnstar
	You've been doing a lot of not fun stuff like clerking WP:AE recently. I want you to know that I appreciate that, and it's been very helpful for keeping the process running smoothly when not a lot of people are willing to do that kind of work. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:30, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, that is very kind. I put the original in my Ronco Barnstar Vault, where my barnstars. AE is probably one of the least fun things to do as admin, so I understand why others don't want to do it. Since the community granting the bit (10 years ago now), I kinda feel like I should spend at least some time doing things that aren't that joyful, but are necessary. It is certainly a challenge, and that cuts both ways. And again, I appreciate the sentiment. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:53, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think I may have said this to you before, but I so agree. You do some really thankless tasks. You well deserve this. - jc37 12:07, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Good to see familiar names around still, thanks for your good work. Andrevan@ 06:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you. My participation varies by time of year and workload, but I'm still addicted to the original principle of Wikipedia, so I hang around. Not as many of us that joined in the early days left. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:57, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

  yeah, I understand, thank you for the clarification.

  happy Friday :). 108.30.205.112 (talk) 13:57, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. <span data-dtsignatureforswitching="1"></span> Akim Ernest (talk) 21:56, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Thank you. I knew that, but forgot that I knew that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:04, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• If you want to reverse me, that is perfectly fine, but I was going by the content which including cleaning up verbiage in the request, then declining it, which seemed to indicate it was the same person doing a sloppy job. Maybe they are joe jobbing, but my first inclination was that it was them, based on style and content of edits. Again, you probably know them better, so no offense will be taken if you want to modify my actions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:47, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• It's easy to restore Talk page access, but you also declined the unblock request for reasons that I don't think are true. The user is not the most articulate person - and of course it's easy to see how angry he is, which no doubt makes him less coherent - but he did address the reason for the block. Indeed, he admitted that he is a sock. It's just the usual cant about how he's reformed.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:53, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The decline was before any of the other things happened, it wasn't part of the same action. They didn't address the socking adequately in the request, thus the decline. It was more of a "oh come on, i did wrong but I'm a good guy" request, which wasn't enough to convince me to unblock him. Again, I'm using the best info I have, and this isn't the first time he's socked, per your own block in 2020, so no, that request wasn't sufficient. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:59, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also note, I didn't have time to start a real discussion with him after declining, as the other stuff began happening. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:00, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the sock edits occurred before your decline. It's one thing to deny an unblock request because it isn't persuasive, but your decline made it look like he was not addressing the socking at all. Also, I think it was premature to threaten him with revocation of TP access. Please understand (1) I'm not a fan of LBM or any other socks and (2) I don't think he has a chance in hell of being unblocked anytime soon. That said, I'm going to restore TPA and e-mail and finesse something or other on his Talk page. I hope that's okay.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:58, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was typing out my decline before any of the other activity started, and edit conflicted, forcing me to reload, but the page had been reverted by then. The time stamps demonstrate this. So the chronology is exactly as I stated. And again, by the time all that happened, there wasn't an opportunity to extend conversation. Do what you wish, I already gave my blessing in my first sentence to you in this thread. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:13, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dennis,

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

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

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

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

• One problem is that no bright line rule seems to be violated. That would make it easy to do something. Next, if there is a lack of discussion on the talk page, you may need to start one or more RFCs on the content. We can't pick sides in a content war, and if there isn't a clear consensus, then we can't say someone is edit warring against consensus. Part of the problem with an article like this is that it is about disinformation, often coming from disinformation, so the data is a moving target. I would be expected there is a lot of changes to the article, including adding and taking away text. Being sourced isn't enough, as information changes, WP:DUE and WP:WEIGHT come to play, so assuming it's all sourced, then it all boils down to consensus. That's why I'm saying you will likely have to have some RFCs or formal discussions on the article talk page to establish clear consensus. Each discussion should be simple or consensus is hard to read. And keep in mind, that consensus can and does change, but someone edit warring against a consensus has the burden to show that consensus HAS changed, or risks getting blocked.

• The RFC or discussion should be phrased in an exceedingly neutral way such as "Should we include this this text blah blah blah, this is the text/claim/etc that someone wants to include, with this source [link] or should we leave it out?" The key to a good, clean discussion/RFC is having the question worded so that no one can tell what YOUR opinion is, until they go to the polling section, where you are free to give your opinions. When you insert your opinion in the original statement, you are pissing on your own feet. You are starting with a battleground attitude. The original statement must be devoid of all opinion, it should only present 2 or 3 choices, with equal treatment given to each. Anything less isn't a fair RFC/discussion.

• Admin can't and won't decide what is the best content at AE. That would actually be an abuse of power. For us to act, we need bright lines to be crossed. Either obvious multiple breaches of personal attacks, obviously edit warring against consensus, or obvious violation of the 1RR restriction. Or other clear cut policy violations that are relative to the discretionary sanctions area. Nuanced problems, while real and frustrating, are not likely to get action, like the last AE report you filed. To me, this isn't ripe for AE action at this time because it is about content, and you haven't exhausted other dispute resolution methods first. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:53, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And speaking on more obvious issues, I can see a couple of problems on part of Gitz6666:

1. [1] - here is what Gitz6666 responded when I asked him not to follow my edits [2].
2. [3] - I think that comment by Gitz6666 on 3RRNB was inappropriate for a number of reasons including false accusation of racism. I did try to explain this on their talk page [4], but apparently without any success. My very best wishes (talk) 18:04, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Thank you for your thorough reply: it's much appreciated. I've opened a couple of RfC (not very successfully) following the advice of more experienced editors. However, there must be something very basic about editing here that I fail to understand. If I add contents to an article and get reverted, I usually open a discussion on the talk page (unless I'm truly confident I can address the other editor's concerns in a new edit summary). I do the same when I'm removing contents that have not been recently added (in which case it's up to the other to open a discussion and get consensus). However, when MVBW removes well-sourced and relevant contents that have been there for months and gets reverted, he removes them again, and again, just paying attention to formally comply with the 3RR. That creates painful "arm wrestle" situations, which can last for several days, as we've seen on War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: a low-intensity, protracted edit war, which is at odds with discussion and consensus building. The one who wins is the one who has more time to spend on Wikipedia, and this can't be right. So according to my understanding, if MVBW thinks that certain long-standing contents should be removed from that article, he should start a discussion and, if he doesn't get a consensus, he should open an RfC: it's up to him, and not to me, to do this. What's my basic mistake? Thank you, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:26, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it is all about having a consensus that you can prove exists. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:45, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I have another question for you - after this, I will no longer abuse the hospitality of your talk page. In your answer here above and also at AE, you explained that admins shouldn't meddle with contents disputes and that the distinction between content and behaviour is very important for you. I appreciate this policy: administrative self-restraint would be a blessing for the Italian Wikipedia. However, I don't understand how you deal with civil POV pushing here. Obviously I don't expect you to write an essay in reply, but if you could point to a couple of cases of civil POV-pushers who had been sanctioned in the past I'd be grateful: I'd like to see how these cases were built, what kind of evidence were discussed, and at what forum (ANI, AE, ARBCOM, etc.). Could you help? Thank you, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:09, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks (ie: "you are an asshat") are easy to spot, and anything past a single instance is dealt with using some kind of sanction. Simple incivility (ie: "your ideas are shit") is trickier. I tend to be a bit more tolerant of incivility than many admin. Particularly if it is during a single discussion, rather than a long term thread. Civil POV pushing is often even more difficult, and requires a longer pattern of behavior. Sometimes it is very obviously, but typically it is not. Sometimes the line between civil POV pushing and just politely feeling strong about a subject is not so thin, and isn't obvious at first glance. It isn't a "bright line" offense. And sometimes what is passion about an idea that is acceptable may be perceived by someone with the opposite feelings, may come across as civil POV when it really isn't. This is an example of when admin seek input from multiple admins to make sure they aren't jumping the gun on interpretation. We seek to prevent civil POV pushing, but not to punish passion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:25, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a passionate editor creates new contents, looking for sources and ideas that corroborate their passion; the result may be unbalanced at first, but with everybody's contribution it can develop into a good piece of encyclopedia. Passion is their motivation, and the outcome may be productive. Civil POV-pushers, on the other hand, block other people's work, and remove contents and sources that don't fit their world-view. They may be in good-faith in doing so, as they feel that those contents are "WP:UNDUE" and that those sources are not reliable, or have been misunderstood - they have good policy-based reasons for hindering the development of the encyclopedia. But they are biased: passion makes them incapable of appreciating other people's point of views and the outcome is disruptive.

I agree with what you say. Distinguishing the two cases is not easy and seeking inputs from other editors (as I'm doing now) is the only way of avoiding mistakes. Thank you for your time, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:59, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

• You've been warned several times, and you are at the cusp of being blocked. Not for the edit, which could be argued either way, but for your behavior. Your edit here is textbook of your edit summaries, and why I don't expect you to be editing here very long. You lack the ability to cooperate and collaborate in a civil fashion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 08:14, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  what are you talking about??? I made two separate edits, first made Japan the 4th primary user, then Australia after using Bilcat's guidance. You need to explain yourself - not the other way around. Why did you make the RAF the 4th primary user, when Japan has more F-35s on order, and while Australia has 50 F-35s currently in service, which is more than any other country. E8eY4BdnUnhxPYHr (talk) 08:24, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to talk about the merits of the article, the article talk page is where that takes place. My comments here, and on your talk page, are referring to your behavior, which is a real problem. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 08:26, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]