User talk:BrandonWM

 Hello, welcome to my talk page!

If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom, as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) or "new section" on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~ 

Attention: I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page—my talk page—as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere.

July 2022
Hi BrandonWM,

I get that you would like to delete your User:BrandonWM/signature, and related subpages, within your own userspace, but please note that User:BrandonWM/signature has these pages which either (a) transclude it or (b) link to it. Thus, it cannot be deleted until those have been updated.

Your proceeding to re-move the page and request deletion again after it was declined constitutes edit warring. Thus, I have blocked you for 1 day. After your block expires, if the edit warring continues, you may be blocked by an administrator for a longer period, with or without warning. I am willing to unblock you sooner, if you confirm, on-wiki, that you agree to discontinue the edit warring and follow the instructions given.

Thank you,

Dmehus (talk) 22:34, 2 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The block has been reverted because as it stands 3 admins including me believe it to be unjustified. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  22:36, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree, given that BrandonWM continue to add delete tags to his User:BrandonWM/signature, which has existing transclusions and backlinks that would first need to be updated. Given that another administrator, Agent Isai, and now myself, had previously warned BrandonWM very explicitly and clearly via edit summaries that adding deletion tags to his signature was breaking talk pages, his continuing to move pages was disruptive. Dmehus (talk) 22:40, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Agent, myself, MrJaroslavik and Zppix all believe your block was not appropriate. It was without a proper warning, involved and we wouldn't have placed a block in this case. We are extremely concerned that one of your first actions after loosing Steward is a controversial one. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  22:42, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * ,, I’d also just like to add that it’s impossible for anyone to read every edit summary on Meta. I only read ones that make landmark decisions such as an RfS or as such, and even so it’s also not the appropriate way to issue a warning. Thanks - BrandonWM (talk • contribs • global • rights) 22:44, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It’s his userspace. If he wants something deleted, that is his choice. Zppix (Meta &#124; talk to me) 22:46, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is, and I'm happy to delete those subpages, once the transclusions and backlinks have been updated. Until then, we have talk pages and archives with delete tags in them due to the deletion tags. Dmehus (talk) 22:48, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Is there any reason protection wasn't considered in this particular case? It would seem the most effective way to encourage discussion and resolution to the problem than a block? Especially when in the edit summary you passed a few conditions that need to be met, followed up by a block preventing constructive attempts to remedy your concerns. Alternatively, having a look at the list of pages, it seems rather small so perhaps you could have carried out the wiki gnoming activity as part of the deletion request as well? It just seems the step to a block was a rather steep escalation to a minor situation where other avenues would have appropriately resolve it to a good degree. John (talk) 22:48, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a talk page warning could've been considered, but I was concerned by the BrandonWM continuing to ignore Agent Isai's advisory here and my subsequent advisory(ies). As BrandonWM is active, I was hoping that would be clear enough advice for them to update those backlinks and transclusions. If they declined or asked me for assistance, I'd have happily updated them for him. In any case, I'll do that now, after reverting the subsequent page move. Dmehus (talk) 22:53, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * - As I previously stated I’m active but I patrol Meta, I’m not focused on edits made by Meta admins unless I’m pinged. In addition, a talk page message or even notices on Discord and IRC would’ve been good as I check those venues often. Thanks - BrandonWM (talk • contribs • global • rights) 22:57, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * BrandonWM, I'm not very active on Discord, so that is not a good method. You should get a rather prominent ping in the form of an Echo notification when someone directly reverts ( or  ) your edit. Dmehus (talk) 23:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Undo or Rollback is not a valid warning. You should be using talk page messages to issue warnings, as a Meta sysop, and former steward, you should know these things. Zppix (Meta &#124; talk to me) 23:02, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I’ve recently checked my notifications have found no such notification. Thanks - BrandonWM (talk • contribs • global • rights) 23:03, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You might be amazed at the fact that 'not everybody has undo/rollback notif turned on'. I turned it off a while ago. You just can't be so sure about that. It's not even 'should' in rfc2119, at best 'may'. &mdash; revi  00:03, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Transclusions updated and pages deleted
Hi BrandonWM,

I've now ✅ the existing transclusions and backlinks to the various userspace subpages involving your old signature file, and ✅ them per your request, with the exception of User:BrandonWM/Status, as that is utilized by UserStatus. If you would like that deleted, I would need you to say, by way of a reply, that you want your existing user status removed from prior instances of your signature. Thanks.

Cheers,

Dmehus (talk) 23:36, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, I just saw this. Reverting changes in your own user space is still not considered edit warring since the last time you claimed it was. Also, there is no rule that backlinks must be updated, that was just something you made up. In fact, several users have a problem with you editing archives, which something that was mentioned in your original RfDS. Please stop this behavior. Naleksuh (talk) 23:45, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * As to the latter purported "problem," that is not correct. In fact, it is now explicitly codified in policy that this form of minor editing is explicitly permitted. Dmehus (talk) 23:47, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I never said it wasn't permitted. I simply said other people had a problem with it, and that it is not required nor something blocking deletion. I am not a sysop on Meta but I also agree with the 4 other people that the actions were incorrect, and this talk info just making it worse. You are constantly citing w:IDHT to other people. But it sounds like it applies the most to you. Naleksuh (talk) 23:50, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If the pages were deleted whilst the transclusions existed, that would break existing archives. Dmehus (talk) 23:53, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. Naleksuh (talk) 23:55, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi . Consider this my confirmation to delete my User Status. Thanks - BrandonWM (talk • contribs • global • rights) 23:48, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Volunteering pointers/account note
Hi Brandon. This is mostly sparked from edits made here but it's cumulative of an issue I've seen several times, and I think it's fair to be clear and upfront about it sooner than later.

Frankly, you have a tendency to interject into posts and make yourself appear as someone who can take advanced actions when really, you cannot nor does this seem to be done with attempts to collaborate with someone who can or has more context (at which point they're the ones who should post). I'm glad to see someone interested but the interest needs to be in context of what you can do so it does not for example confuse people on the SN or the linked page to believe you're a Steward, likewise in requests to reopen wikis. This is something Matt for example has been told about and since then he's been more deliberate in how he enters situations, I would ask you to do the same. This isn't to say don't respond to anything that can only be finalized to a steward, but to reduce those replies to areas where the answer is evident and putting in your 2c will save time or add something new (if a wiki was reopened locally or the user is a bureaucrat on their wiki it's free reign imo, you almost had it with database deletion since there was only one more thing that could be tried, but if the complexity is higher caution should be exercised). In more discretion-based cases or issues where the answer isn't concrete, it's best to a) leave that topic to be resolved by functionaries and if you want b) message someone involved with your advice if you have something to add, or c) comment about it perhaps on the Stewards' noticeboard or to the functionary if you question the way it's being handled.

I make this post to try and reduce confusion and optimize your volunteering since I know you intend to do good and are also always looking for ways to improve or advice to avoid the issues of the past.

Not to confuse with two subjects, but we also discussed account restrictions and you wanted the conclusion to be public on meta, so here's what I have. I'm not rescinding restrictions completely, but as discussed I'd be satisfied with: That should be all, feel free to reach out if any aspect of this isn't clear or I've mixed up a detail. --Raidarr (talk) 13:22, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Registrations made while logged in to Meta with Special:CreateAccount
 * If there's a reason to be less publicly transparent or register elsewhere/logged out, reaching out to a Steward so the team is in the know