User talk:Dennis Brown/Archive 41

Hello, Dennis Brown. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cannabis/420 Collaboration#Recreational vs adult use.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thank you for all the help you have given me. I reward you with a User box I made.

Dinah Kirkland (talk) 00:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not one to block people per ANI, but I Just promised to block JJBers and/or StephenTS42 if they edit there again for 6 months I'm not an ANI regular, so feel free to tell me where to get off if I'm wrong. Probably need some notification on thier talk pages.Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:08, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

You can't unilaterally do that, not the way you did it. You could close the discussion since that is the consensus, and blocking is a natural way of enforcing it, but we admin can only topic ban if is a General Sanction, Discretionary Sanction or Community decision. This one is a community decision, but it needs closing and finalizing by you first, using the archive headers. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

You can see an example of using the archive headers on this talk page. And done forget the closing archive at the bottom of the discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:13, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Eh,

TimothyJosephWood

22:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I have too many irons in the fire and didn't notice. Then I would strike the block comment. That would be in essence issuing a unilateral topic ban. Can't do that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Yup. And in case there is a follow up block from the TBAN, which gets a messy appeal, don't want technicalities muddying the waters.

TimothyJosephWood

22:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Errr...

TimothyJosephWood

22:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks HAve contacted Oswah and I'm striking everything.Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

• ANI is a beast unto itself, takes some getting used to, but its a good place to learn process. I've worked ANI since before I became an admin. Because it is such a public stage, its easy to get called out for now following policy to the letter. Hang out and spectate if you aren't used to it, you will learn it quick enough. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:32, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I always eschewed ANI because of the melodrama. In general, the bickering, misrepresentation, and misleading recriminations are odious. Don't know how you stand it. It looks like the community is, in this instance, content to let them bicker. Why should I interfere in something they obviously enjoy doing?Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

ANI is nearly always an obscene waste of time, but ideally, it's less so than the alternative, which in this case is to continue to run up and down

TimothyJosephWood

14:02, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Dlohcierekim, the funny thing is, ANI doesn't bother me in the least. I like solving problems and the majority of my work here has been centered around behavioral disputes. I would rather help with behavioral problems than content disputes any day of the week. I tend to get more heated up during content disputes. I supposed most people don't like dealing with behavior problems, or get upset, while I tend to not. I guess it just takes all kinds. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. [4].

I've focused my energies elsewhere and have indeed learned a lot from the experience.

Perhaps if you have a chance you might like to peruse some of the new articles I wrote recently, like Disinformation (book), Dezinformatsia (book), or The Case for Impeachment, and let me know what you think of my efforts ?

Sagecandor (talk) 00:07, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

If I feel a user is wikihounding me, can I do anything about it ? Is there a way to suggest it is best for us to just avoid each other, at least for a good long while ? Sagecandor (talk) 02:55, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Most of the time, you start by trying to talk to them. Calmly. You would be shocked how many times things can be worked out by calmly talking to someone and not starting out with claims and yelling. Same as in real life. Then ask a third party to look if that does work. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I tried that [5], thank you for the sound advice. Does my wording look alright? Sagecandor (talk) 11:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

And I would just leave it alone regardless of his response. He is a bit snippy at times but a very good editor otherwise. We can't all be saints. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:27, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

[6]. Okay. I'll take your advice. And hope that my leaving him alone can maybe go both ways? Sagecandor (talk) 20:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

[7]. Dennis. This is getting ridiculous. This is

Dennis, thank you for your requests to the user, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defeating ISIS. Just curious how long this would be allowed to continue to go on for? I mean, can it encourage me to do the same thing (I won't), and get away with it? Sagecandor (talk) 15:59, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

There really isn't an answer for this. I'm not the law, just one admin who may have a different threshold for action than another admin. Taken individually, there isn't a problem with his actions, even the ill advised AFD. I don't like to draw lines in the sand as that only encourages people to approach them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:02, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'm going to keep writing new articles. I hope every single darned one doesn't get nominated for deletion by the same individual. That is disruption. A waste of the community's time. And spiteful. And the very definition of

WP:WIKIHOUNDING, no? Sagecandor (talk

) 16:04, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Dennis, it hasn't stopped, see [8] and [9]. What can be done here? Sagecandor (talk) 22:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

User has violated 1RR and added "

WP:UNDUE WEIGHT. Is this reportable to AE yet ? Is that an appropriate move at this time? Is there another step I can take here? Sagecandor (talk

) 23:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

• Technically, he made a change and one revert, and the content he added/reverted to is a direct quote from that source. His first edit wasn't a revert, it was a modification. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:24, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Okay. However it's highly inflammatory to have the word "fraud" on the page of a
    WP:BLP from one (1) source. Strongly disagree with that. Not sure how to resolve this next. And he's still following me around. What can be done? Sagecandor (talk
    ) 23:26, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
    • You have two options: Go see if you can find another source that uses the word fraud and add it, or if you can't, raise the issue on the talk page. It could be he is right but it needs more sources. Might go a long way towards getting along if you found one and added it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:29, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
      • I looked. I found zero other sources. I raised the issue on the talk page. Now we wait. And in the meantime, "fraud" sits there on the page of a
        WP:BLP, denigrating the person based on one (1) source's opinion. That is wrong. What else can be done? Sagecandor (talk
        ) 23:31, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
        • Keep calm and wait. Easier said than done, but in the end, it is the most productive way and has a higher possibility of finding a solution. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
          • Agreed. Okay. Will try to. Trying to keep myself busy writing other new articles instead. It's not easy. It feels like being violated to be subject to
            WP:WIKIHOUNDING in this manner. I had already been in the process of improving this particular page, and writing new articles about books by the subject, first. Sagecandor (talk
            ) 23:39, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
            • In this case, he is using actual quotes. Forget about hounding so much. I think I made it perfectly clear that I'm watching in that AFD, but I'm patient and not going to jump to conclusions. I'm pretty sure he knows I'm serious but fair about this stuff. Just edit, find some joy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:54, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
              • The word "fraud" does not belong in the
                WP:BLP page, based on one (1) source. Also, just look at his contribs. He's done NOTHING but stalk me, for the last five (5) days now. Nothing else. Literally nothing else. Sagecandor (talk
                ) 23:55, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dennis. I was wondering if you had a minute to take a lookey Improvements here at some proposed content I authored with a COI. CorporateM (Talk) 21:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

• It is a bit of "here is a company, here are all the financial things they did" but most articles for newer media companies look similar. Looks pretty solid. If it went to AFD, I would Keep it and confident it would pass muster by the community. As a side note, their ads are very annoying. ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:28, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
• Your draft is better. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:30, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I see a duck ...new editor all familiar with our lingo. Editing same article infoboxes, creating series templates...etc. Should I open a sock invest......? Editing odd articles like Erin O'Toole makes this obvious . --Moxy (talk) 06:40, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Charles lindberg -(unsourced no consensus)

Medicinehatter (rv to sourced version)

• I think you have enough evidence to get a CU to peek around, so yes, SPI would be a good idea. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 06:44, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good....tomorrow I should have time to do all this--Moxy (talk) 06:48, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Charles lindberg--Moxy (talk) 17:30, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Good catch, and picked up a sleepy as well, Moxy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:26, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

You do realize you closed as delete an AfD where NO ONE aside from the editor opined for a deletion outcome? Two keeps (which admittedly are pretty weak), two merges, and a redirect option. Please reconsider your close and amend it appropriately. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 21:08, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

• One nominated and three said merge/redirect. That means they didn't want the article and only wanted it in that list. Mission accomplished as it was already in that list (not sure if you checked that). The keep votes were completely without merit, so what I saw was 4 people that agreed it should not be a stand alone article and two keeps with no policy rationale. 4-2 against the article and that is if I'm generous and give credit to the 2. Merging implies deletion. Technically, so does a redirect, although the article history is typically preserved but only one person suggested that. You are welcome to take it to
  WP:DRV if you like. Dennis Brown - 2¢
  21:25, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) [Admiringly:] Not sure I would have dared do what you did there, Dennis. It's an unusual situation, to be the first person on the page to use the word "delete" — but IMO you were absolutely right, and came to the only logical conclusion. Bishonen | talk 22:21, 10 June 2017 (UTC).
• If you think that merging implies deletion, I'm afraid your reasoning is at odds with policy, specifically
  WP:ATD-M. If you really want me to take it to DRV instead of realigning your close, I'll regretfully do so. Jclemens (talk
  ) 23:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Since it is a raw list and only the name could be added, and was indeed added before the close, they are effectively the same since in all circumstances the editors wanted the article under that title to disappear. Not one single person who articulated a policy based rationale wanted to keep the article as it was. So yes, DRV is your best option. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:56, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

done. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 00:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I've already replied. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:21, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, a quick question: can I report someone for an ARBPIA violation if they were not notified of ARBPIA at the time of the violation, were then notified but refuse to correct the problem after notification? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:14, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

• I wouldn't recommend it. Personally, I'm one of those that like to remain very calm, give people enough rope until they hang themselves, then politely report it, and it is so blindingly obvious that no one questions my motives. Patience is a good thing, so is lots of evidence. In this case, we really look at behavior AFTER the template more than before, and it might look petty. Wait a day, revert, see what happens, keep your cool. Remember, at any admin board, we look at the behavior of everyone involved. If you behavior is that of a model citizen, it allows us to focus exclusively on the other person. This is extra important if you have ever had sanctions yourself, since there may be some natural skepticism. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

• I would really rather not report them at all, and suggested several times they discuss their behavior with an experienced editor they trust, but that doesn't seem to be helping. I was just wondering about the template. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:38, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

• Reporting would be a AE, which I don't recommend unless it is obvious. You templated him, just leave it alone now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:16, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dennis,

Not sure why the listing

• It was changed to a redirect due to the discussion at
  WP:DRV if you think I made an error in reading the consensus at that discussion. If you revert back, that would be disruptive editing and can result in sanction, so don't. Dennis Brown - 2¢
  12:49, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

For being awesome.

v/r - TP 23:51, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Because kittens are cool.

Sagecandor (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

You hatted the complaint against El_C right as I wrote my comment that the admins should really clarify this time the past warnings Debresser has been given about what parts of his disruptive behavior will lead to sanction, if they continue. He has been previously issued a warning, but I wanted the admins to be clearer this time. I would like the comment to remain in the AE complaint even though it has been hatted, but I just wanted to let you know that I did not intend to edit a closed discussion, in case that is a problem the discussion was still open when I started writing, and I am not the only editor who has written that the sanction was too light. Seraphim System ^(talk) 10:38, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

• I think the message is already pretty clear, I didn't want to twist the knife once it is in so I just kept it simple. Also, at AE, no one can reopen or add to a closed discussion, not even another admin, because it is an arm of Arb. It's the only board we have that is that way but it is rigorously enforced. Admin have been dragged before Arb for reverting before. But again, he should already get the point, so I don't want to reopen it myself. If not, then sanctions will happen. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

That's why I want to be clear, I'm not sure when it was hatted (either shortly before or right as I was sending my edit through) but the discussion was still open when I started editing. I definitely did not intend to add to a closed discussion. Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:34, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I know, I'm just asking to let it lie as it is. Everyone in that discussion spoke against his version of events. Me opening it up to add one more would look like piling on. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:45, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I see now that it was already included. Out of good faith I will leave it be. Generally, when you notice when you have added to a closed AE, you should self revert. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:07, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi --

I see you've been editing the

• Not sure I have time. Technically, I"m NOT editing the Congressional article, I'm working the talk page, keeping uninvolved and just mopping up, creating archives, helping give sources, generally supporting the editors. That way I can block someone if I need to. I do this for hot topic / breaking news type articles on a regular basis. You might go to WP:AN and just ask if an admin would consider adopting the talk page for clean up and monitoring for a week or two. That is how I found the Congressional page. I might be spreading myself a bit thin to take on a new mop job this week. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:07, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  • OK, I'll ask there.
    talk
    ) 00:48, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Could you clarify what you mean by "making personal attacks towards other editors"? I admit I am often brusque but I do not beleive I have made any personal attacks. Cheers, Artw (talk) 22:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

• That was a bit genericized as the templates only give us so many choices, but you were more than rude and baiting. The phrase "You canvas like a motherfucker mate. You just apply a level of low-key deniability to it that a child could see through." was the pivot point but yes there was other comments piled on top. Admin don't just look at singular trigger comments, we have to consider the whole. It isn't about saying "fuck", it is about a tone that was inappropriate and started the downward spiral, baiting the IP. It was begging for a response, and you succeeded. We don't have time for that. It was a short block, for both of you, I wasn't making a big deal of it but it had to stop. His response was worse than your baiting, but it seemed to be you both contributed towards the disruption and it seemed obvious it was about to get worse. Blocking like this isn't my favorite thing to do, but the totality of the situation called for it, in my opinion. For what it is worth, the IP admitted he went over the line, which is a good thing as hopefully he won't repeat. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:15, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Understood. Since no personal attacks were involved per se I would appreciate it if, if possible, you modify any logs etc. to reflect that. I will refrain from saying anybody does anything "like a motherfucker" in future. Artw (talk) 22:32, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
    • I can't change the log, but I did leave a note with a summary that is easy to find. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:37, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dennis,

Is it possible to be permanently banned/blocked from Wikipedia? I'd like to be. — Preceding [ [Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by 47.32.217.164 (talk) 17:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

• You could just stay away. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:20, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Well, past history has shown that I feel like contributing after a while. And apparently there's no interest in what I have to offer. It's been deemed disruptive. A permanent ban would prevent a recurrence, and it's what I want. I'm not asking you to do it, but could you point me to the appropriate place to request that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.32.217.164 (talk) 17:26, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
    • A permanent ban is hard to enforce on an IP, and I can't unilaterally impose a ban. No one person can. It is also impossible to enforce perfectly because your IP changes. You just have to stay away on your own. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:42, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
      • My IP changes according to my ISP's whims. It's been pretty stable for a couple months, I believe, so it's likely to be effective while it lasts. If not a permanent ban, can I at least request a temporary one? 2-5 years, ideally. I'm liable to come back if it's not something like that.
        • Again, no single admin has that authority. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:49, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
          • Understood. Where do I request that, though? I'm happy to make that request of multiple admins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.32.217.164 (talk) 17:53, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
• As per your request on my talk page, I have blocked you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thank you for helping me deal with stalking and harassment. Sagecandor (talk) 16:15, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

• SashiRolls (talk · contribs)

Hello. Long time no see. I checked the user's edits on Donald Duk and François Rabelais before being indef. banned. Are they okay? --George Ho (talk) 14:24, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

• They weren't banned, just blocked, and only for behavior on talk pages, not for their article edits. The normal editing process by interested editors should be fine. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Slightly different topic, but still about SashiRolls.... Thanks for backing me up on deleting that content. I was taking a chance, but it just seemed so wrong. We allow a certain amount of freedom on user pages, but this was totally against what we stand for. It was a NOTHERE misuse of Wikipedia for nefarious, private purposes. People like that make it dangerous to edit here, and we can't allow that. --

Now that

• Godsy, my personal WP:HOUND can take a long walk off a short pier. He is the king of false allegations and is fresh of a block for harrassment of me.
  • Edit summary "hounds should be quiet"

They have behaved similarly there in the past:

• Godsy is the time waster bring back a deleted draft and he is uncivil to boot. Misrepresents my actions and acts like a complete troll. Get a life and stop stalking my edits Godsy.
  • Edit summary "ridiculous troll"
    

I'm not keen on taking this to an/i, because I'm not up for another potential 2+ week discussion. I always attempt to maintain civility, and never make personal attacks. I've called the above statements and similar ones "false allegations", comments on the statements being put forth, not the contributor. I shouldn't have to regularly put up with this because I disagree another individual at miscellany for deletion where I am a regular participant. Any advice? — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 23:12, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not going to have a long mini-ANI on my page either, but I will say to Legacypac that this shit needs to stop, period. I don't want to discuss it really, it speaks for itself. You know you can't do this. The older stuff I'm not worried about (from either of you), and again, I don't want to discuss this other than to say you both need to avoid each other, and this incivil stuff needs to stop. No excuses, no showing me prior diffs, just stop. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:48, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I wrote and deleted several responses not so nice responses, but instead here is a link [11].

I've come to peace with having a personal hound and that anyone can say almost anything here about other editors regardless of how untrue or unsubstantiated. Thank-you Dennis for showing me the light. Legacypac (talk) 02:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Common sense man. You undermine any argument you might have if you respond like that one diff. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Legacypac

People would not be able to suggest harassment if you did not follow them around. Let someone else deal with your adversary's alleged problems. Johnuniq (talk) 05:15, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the close so far. I hope it will not be going on the same way it did the last couple of months (which, after one gets to know the others users edit style and behaviors- is sadly quite unlikely). However, could you explain to me what is meant by that exactly " The primary point has already been made and agreed to by Jytdog, that the RFC extends a bit farther than just the infobox and a fresh RFC would need to be had to clarify changing the links in the prose" ? Thanks.--Joobo (talk) 14:15, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not sure how you don't understand that, but Jtydog has indicated he won't war over that one link anymore and I made it clear he needs to get a new consensus, that the RFC was more than just the infobox. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:28, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok, understand that now. Well, hopefully it will not escalate any time soon again. And if, then possibly sanctions are needed in case RfC outcomes or unacceptable insinuations and personal attacks are made again.--Joobo (talk) 16:49, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

About this, so not a word about "Joobo". Please reconsider? Jytdog (talk) 14:48, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• A close doesn't have to encapsulate the entire discussion, only the primary points. You put too much credit in them. If sanctions are used later, the close of a prior discussion is rather meaningless. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:54, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree with your characterization of closes and how they are used later. "Joobo" launched the thread to pre-empt the case I was going to bring. I went ahead and brought it. You ignored it in your close. If you will not address that in your close, I will go to AN and ask that it be addressed. Would you please reconsider. Thanks.Jytdog (talk) 19:57, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

As someone who has formerly collaborated with you well, and putting aside recent issues between us, it seems you're pretty stressed out right now. You should probably take a break. Between going head to head with me, JFG, and now Dennis, you seems to be on the edge and we'd all hate to see a fellow Wikipedian implode.--v/r - TP 00:00, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Where did I go head to head with you TP? In any case, I laid out a very clear case of "Joobo";s continued disruption in the topic where he earned an indefinite block here, then in which they got 7 blocks in de-WP over the course of a single year, before getting unblocked here (with no discussion of his behavior at de-WP). He went right back to being disruptive at the topic. That needs addressing. That is not unreasonable. If that is not clear to others, then that should be said. I would find that surprising at best, but that would need saying. Jytdog (talk) 02:20, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what's going on at de-WP, which has no impact here, nor what or who Joobo is. But Dennis is a reasonable person and he's likely to be endorsed in a discussion about his admin actions.--v/r - TP 12:27, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

• Been busy dealing with a wedding and real life. If you want my actions reviewed, you are always welcome to file a petition at
  WP:AE), it is an editorial one. My personal opinion is that it simply needed to rest; there are no saints, and everyone needed to move on once the primary issue was dealt with, something I appreciate you stepping up to the plate and doing without a fight. Dennis Brown - 2¢
  15:21, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Great, thanks for your note. Again, the ANI filed by Joobo was pre-emptive, and although I did make my post, they clearly feel their actions have been blessed, based on what they wrote above, and this is going only to lead to more trouble. I am not contesting the part about me (you made your thoughts clear already in the ANI itself) but I am unhappy that the close doesn't discuss Joobo's behavior. If you won't change it, the thing needs to be overturned, which is just a bunch of drama. Would you please either revert the close so someone else can do it, or amend your close? here is the diff of your close, to make it convenient. I am not looking for drama but Joobo should not walk away empowered to continue as they have been. Thx Jytdog (talk) 16:53, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Any uninvolved editor may overturn my close, there was no administrative action in it. You are welcome to find any person you choose to do so, or ask the community to at

WP:AN. I simply do not find it necessary, but won't stand in the way if you choose to pursue it. Again, I don't recommend it, but I'm not your nanny, you are welcome to do as you please. Dennis Brown - 2¢

18:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I will add: this late in the game, the proper venue really is WP:AN. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I favor dialogue over drama. But you have made it clear that you won't change the close, so off I go then. Thanks for talking, in any case. Jytdog (talk) 01:15, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

done, I pinged you. Jytdog (talk) 02:06, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

• Cutting (plant) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello again. The article was frequently vandalized but seldom edited. Last edit was February 2017. Initially, I thought about requesting it at WP:RPP, but I read there has been a backlog. I wonder whether you can initiate indefinite pending changes. Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 04:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

• With only 4 edits in the last 12 months, I really can't put any kind of protection on it. No admin should, policy is pretty clear we shouldn't use to be preventative. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:21, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

(I know this might be a bit late, but...) Welcome back! JustBerry (talk) 21:47, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you about the Cutting (plant). Meanwhile, what about edits by the user Vijaygthorat (talk · contribs)? I welcomed him but warned him about spamming. --George Ho (talk) 19:56, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

•  Done Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh... Thanks. What about this diff then? --George Ho (talk) 21:51, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

The more interesting diff is this one. His entry is no longer at the pump, he self-reverted. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:47, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Dennis! On June 17 you blocked Morty C-137 for a week for "disruption, personal attacks, battleground attitude and general behavior that is inconsistent with building an encyclopedia, per ANI."[12] He reacted very angrily and "quit", which is not an unusual reaction.[13] The block expired June 24. He returned to editing June 26. The first thing he did was to start building a massive sockpuppetry and hounding complaint against Cjhard and others in his userspace; see User:Morty C-137/SPI-Case. He then made a few edits to the same articles he was editing before, and within a day he has gone right back to his old form, with a personal attack at Talk:Oath Keepers [14] and an edit summary describing an edit by Cjhard as "blatantly dishonest". [15] Those are the only examples I found and they are very recent, but I think it's a disturbing trend. Up to you if you want to do anything about this. --MelanieN (talk) 16:43, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

• I'm kind of tied up for a couple days and that is a lot of info. If he has some notes because he is about to file at SPI, that would be fine, but this might exceed that. It has only been a couple of days, however, and allowing a week or two isn't unreasonable if the content is genuinely for that purpose. I don't have enough time to look as close as I would like right now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:03, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
  • OK, thanks. I wasn't really concerned about his complaint building, just his behavior in article space. At this point it is only two incidents. I'll let you know if it escalates. --MelanieN (talk) 17:13, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

They are notes because yes, I do intend to file a SPI case and I am trying to sort out the details and histories and get it right. Same for the case of wikihounding, since MelanieN herself told me I have to have evidence of it in order to make any such complaint. Morty C-137 (talk) 18:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

• Short term storage of information is fine, say a week or two. Long term storage isn't, say over 30 days. I haven't looked at your edits, I'm very tied up. You might want to take the concern expressed and do a little self-evaluation, so others don't have to. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Catch-22 is interesting reading. Morty C-137 (talk) 20:31, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

As you closed Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive957#Godsy back to Wikihounding - how to stop it?, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposing IBAN between Godsy and Legacypac. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 03:41, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dennis - I was referred here and you gave me some helpful advice and pointers. I took your advice and tried to build consensus by opening a RFC on the Breitbart talk page about whether the leading paragraph should have the words "far right" in it. My RFC was promptly shut down and labelled disruptive. Now if I have done something wrong again then fine - but if I have then I don't know what and if someone would point out to me exactly what rule I've contravened I'd be able to modify my behaviour. But if I am asking a valid question then I need some help getting the RFC re-opened. Either way, please could you help me. Thanks.--Quadrow (talk) 21:08, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

• Actually, the RFC you started was very problematic. You really need to put that on the back burner, and learn how we do things, maybe edit some on less controversial articles and just familiarize yourself before trying to start an RFC. The format was wrong, the wording seemed defensive and wasn't clear. These things take time to learn. I suggest you take the time so you are better prepared next time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:28, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

For violating an AP2 article's consensus required provision, today Erlbaeko got an indefinite block and Snooganssnoogans got a "closed with no action." This is one in a list of examples of the failure of processes intended to ensure consistent and predictable rule enforcement. I find it extremely concerning. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• I have no reason to think you are a fool, so I can only guess that you haven't looked closely at the two cases. The circumstances are not the same, so we shouldn't expect the outcome to be. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

The first case looks like a unilateral indef which I think should probably be discussed or lifted. I'm not convinced that the editor's view that reverting a template removal falls outside 1RR restrictions is fair grounds for an indefinite block without any discussion or input from the community. I'm also not sure that talk page comments made during an unblock request fall under DS and it looks to me like that is what the indef was for. Unless it is a repeated pattern I don't think an indef is justified. Editors are not really obligated to agree with an admins interpretation of the 1RR exceptions, they are only obligated for their own actions in making sure that disagreement doesn't become disruptive. Expressing disagreement with the admins about a block is not grounds for an indef, especially since discussions often become heated after a block. I think discussion with the editor about whether reverting the template removal should have fallen within the restrictions would be preferable here. My view is that it doesn't because the exceptions are only for unambiguous vandalism, though reverting the templates is a form of vandalism broadly construed, the revert exceptions do not include this kind of vandalism in the definition. Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:46, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• WP:ADMINACCT, then you probably should at their talk pages. The user was clearly warring, GS sanctions apply, and indef doesn't mean forever. My primary point remains, that you can't compare the two cases. Dennis Brown - 2¢
  20:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

It looks to me, and I'm not saying that was the actual reason, that the indefinite block was based not on the edits by Erlbaeko but by their refusing to abide by the sanctions (1RR) if they were unblocked. Erlbaeko's words look to me that they believe that adding and restoring the POV the tag falls outside of the 1RR. At this point the editor knows that those posting on their talk page agree that reverting the templates removal does count as part of the sanctions. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 21:58, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Indefs are often used when the editor doesn't understand or agree, because they will just go back doing the same thing. and just get blocked again. They are typically reversed (or in this case it would be restored to the 2 day GS) once the editor convincingly states he "gets it". I didn't follow all of it, but the edits I did see, and the block log, made it clear that this was an editor that has had problem with restraint in the past. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:28, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. An editor who openly declares they will IAR when it comes to community-imposed sanctions and do as they see fit should not be unblocked until they change that stance, and if the declaration is open ended, a fixed-term block is not appropriate. I expected the indef to be a short one, and did not expect the "digging in" response. And again, as always, any other admin is welcome to revert my action if they disagree with it or believe it is no longer needed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Just wanted to say I endorse this block. It's very unusual for an editor to openly say they will disregard general sanctions and continue the behavior they were blocked for if the block expires. In that circumstance, a fixed-length block makes little sense. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:59, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

@James J. Lambden: I agree with others that are some differences. First, I must confess that I have made probably 2–4 edits (0–2 reverts) related to ISIS, broadly construed, without knowing about the existence of ISIS general sanctions. Hence my knowledge of these sanctions is limited, but let me try to explain. (Maybe I should notify myself of these sanctions and log the notification – which is mandatory – but I guess someone could accuse me of gaming the system.)

If you look at

Politrukki (talk

) 14:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

• The close was "Satisfactory explanation given. Be careful. There may be a case for WP:ARCA as to whether consensus restrictions should apply to Post 32 politics anymore, but that is beyond the scope of WP:AE.".
  WP:AE. Dennis Brown - 2¢
  15:18, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Proposed Exclusion of Sandbox and Users own TalkPage from T-Bans

I don't see any violation, but I wanted you to be aware of the discussion. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dennis, I was wondering if this page: User:Morty_C-137/SPI-Case could now be deleted. It appears that Morty C-137 has now retired: [16] and he has not made any edits in almost a week.

Thank you, Cjhard (talk) 05:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

• Let me look at it a bit closer later today if I can. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:31, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Let me just note that he "retired" once before, after his block, and was back two days after the block expired. --MelanieN (talk) 16:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

That is *exactly* the type of reason why I want to research or wait. Retire banners are not legally binding. I will say this, I do think his "retire" banner is polemic enough to delete. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

The main reason for his angry retirement is probably me. He kept trying to get me interested in his claims of being stalked and wikihounded, and I wouldn't follow up to his satisfaction. Thus his anger at "admins". His retirement was July 1; it's only July 6; I think it might be

a bit premature to assume he is gone forever. --MelanieN (talk) 16:42, 6 July 2017 (UTC) P.S. In fact if he comes back it will probably be to continue working on that page, and I think Cjhard has a serious COI in asking for it to be deleted. IMO it should only be deleted if it stands idle and un-edited for, say, six months. --MelanieN (talk

) 16:45, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

A user space page of claims shouldn't stay in place more than a month. It can always be undeleted, but if it hasn't been actioned in 30 days, I would delete it, regardless if the editor is active or not. I would extend a bit if asked and the reason was valid. This wouldn't require XfD, the community consensus is pretty clear on it.

WP:POLEMIC (and others) is the guideline. In the past, 30 days has often been thrown around as more than reasonable to "use it or lose it". In this case, there are under-substantiated claims of sockpuppetry, so COI or not, it is reasonable to not want aspersions floating round if they aren't going to be acted on. Dennis Brown - 2¢

17:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the lesson. I wasn't familiar with that guideline. --MelanieN (talk) 18:17, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

What should one do in this situation? There is a clear consensus regarding my appeal (10 supports and 3 opposes), but apparently the bot has archived the discussion before an admin has had a chance to close it. I've never had to appeal for bans before, so I'm quite confused as to what I should do right now. Sk8erPrince (talk) 15:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

• Just copy and paste it back to the page, with the note "unarchived for further discussion" at the top, maybe in the header. Not a big deal, it happens often enough. I would remove from the archive when you do, so there isnt' two copies. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I did that, but the bot just archived it again 20 mins after I've put it back on the noticeboard. I'll put it back again, but I do request swift action regarding my Tban appeal, as I do not wish to unarchive it over and over again. Sk8erPrince (talk) 03:24, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

• Don't just copy and paste it, but remove it from the actual archive. So cut and paste it. Otherwise the archive becomes cluttered with duplicates.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 20:46, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

  • • • That's what I said, I just said it poorly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:00, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I read your concerns at AE about the extended-confirmed rights. I had all my rights relinquished in December 2016 because I figured that I don't deserve to have ECP right. Recently, I thought about having that right re-granted to me, so I can re-edit the ECP pages. However, I have second thoughts about it. Therefore, I started "Talk:Breitbart News#Reinsert "described as" in opening sentence?" and realized that having an ECP is not worth regaining at this time. Also, I read that some people's ECP rights have been revoked due to abuse of the right. What to do about the ECP situation, especially since the Pending changes lv2 is indefinitely/permanently disabled? --George Ho (talk) 19:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

• Not sure I understand the question. I just deal with the policies at hand. I can count the times I've used PC on one hand, I don't find it very useful in most situations, although admit there are a few niche areas it is helpful. Removing ExtConf is actually very useful in that it stops editors from editing highly controversial topics yet lets them edit the overwhelming majority of articles. Considering it was "invented" during a particularly screwed up Arb case, I would call that success. I can totally understand why an editor might want to have ECP/ExtConf removed, however, as it makes for much safer editing, avoiding trouble spots and drama. Even I drop the admin bit and just edit as an IP for a couple of months every year. I find it rather refreshing. But as to "what to do about the ECP situation", I don't see anything that needs doing. The current system seems to work rather well. Seldom do we yank it from someone, but when we do, it prevents a block and lets them edit 97% of the encyclopedia. The only problem is people gaming the system to get ECP, but we seem to be catching most of them, and I always push for strong sanctions to discourage others. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:37, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  • All right. Thanks for the response then. --George Ho (talk) 20:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree that there is no consensus to retain the article in its current form, but I see no justification for hiding the revisions from non-administrators by deleting and then redirecting.

• 4 votes, 3 said to delete it. K.e.coffman explained why a merge was useless, the content was already in the list so there isn't anything to preserve. Your claim that the delete votes not mentioning any reason for deleting is simply wrong. If fact K.e.coffman says in detail what you claim is not said at all. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  • None of the deletion !votes listed any reason other than a lack of notability, and per
    WP:RPURPOSE, and while your interpretation is certainly understandable, in fact K.e.coffman did not actually say what you think he meant: he believes that only reliably sourced content is suitable to be merged, as you can see from his other opinions at similar AfDs. I cannot see whether there was any other content to potentially merge later, as I did not see the article before you deleted it. Again, all I'm asking for is that the underlying revisions be left under the redirect; consensus was clear that a standalone article was not useful. Jclemens (talk
    ) 06:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
    • The List has the the very same, word for word description as the article had, with the exception of a short lede that gave context that the List itself already does. I checked before deleting, and just rechecked for my own sanity. The deletes weren't very excited about a redirect, with K.e.coffman only considering it optional, Bejnar saying it should not get a redirect and the nom not mentioning it at all. If there was new material to be merged, I would understand the concern, but it had one cite (already in the List) and no new prose. There is nothing that can be merged, and the size of it makes the history (a short page with gaps of years) insignificant. It was redirected back in 08, but someone restored 5 years later to add the one citation. I don't understand what value the history would have when there is nothing there. I'm not saying no, I'm saying I would have to see the purpose. And for the record (and I'm on record more than once saying this), I'm more inclined to use
      WP:COMMONSENSE than sweat the minutiae of a dozen other policies. Fine print isn't as convincing as utility, at least for me. Dennis Brown - 2¢
      11:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
      • Thanks for doing that extra work to reassure me--I really do appreciate it. I agree in that case that there's nothing of value to be gained by undeleting those revisions. Jclemens (talk) 00:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
        • Not a problem. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I do not see a consensus for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moglix (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 01:05, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Not Dennis Brown, but each of the sources you offered was contested as insufficient to establish notability, without much if any defense.

talk

) 07:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

The editors who supported retention were unswayed by arguments that Sneha Banerjee of Entrepreneur was writing a "Paid blog" or that Abhishek Jejani of Business Standard or Umesh M Avvannavar of Deccan Herald were writing "brochure[s] in the media". To say that a journalist is being paid to write an article is smearing the journalist's reputation and should not be done without clear evidence. No evidence was given in the AfD. The quotes I provided in the AfD contained detailed coverage of the company's history, products, and services. It is on that basis that I supported retention. The other editors who supported retention found this information to be sufficient to establish notability. It is not within admin discretion to treat as not being within policy our sincerely held position that these bylined sources from reputable publications meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. I hope you reconsider your close. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 04:12, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I have taken this to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 July 12#Moglix. Cunard (talk) 03:35, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm tempted to remove Template:American politics AE from this talk page, as it announces the 'consensus required' provision but this hasn't been logged in the DSLOG. But I'm a bit worried this could be construed as undoing another admin's AE action. Thoughts? I'll ping @Lord Roem: here, though as he hasn't edited in nearly a week I'm not sure what response we'll get.

More generally, I think it's generally recognised that the 'consensus required' provision is a bit of a mess, resulting in the general-sanction version of it that did apply in

Hello Dennis and GoldenRing. SInce these restrictions were applied (as discretionary) by a single admin, they should be reviewable at

WP:AE like any other DS ban or block. This was confirmed by the committee on June 4. I would suggest that someone propose removing *all* consensus-required restrictions on AP2 articles and then leaving it up to individual admins whether they want to put some of them back. That way all the restrictions would have owners. (Coffee's absence takes away the first normal option for review). EdJohnston (talk

) 15:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay. Unless we hear otherwise from others, I should have some time tomorrow to put together something at AE. GoldenRing (talk) 15:41, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Just got to this, busy day at the office. Ed already said what I was going to say, that AE is the place to go, and of course give notice to Lord Roem on his talk page. It would be nice if it passed and admin would put their name in a hidden comment when they add that back, so we know who to go to if they do add it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:02, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::User:Cameron11598 added it to this talk page so hopefully we'll hear their comment. I suggest you go ahead and remove the consensus required bit but it clearly needs to stay under DS. Remove it from any notice I've added. Doug Weller talk

• (edit conflict × 2)As a friend of Coffee's, after speaking with him a while back I agreed to take over responsibility for his admin actions (hence the banner at the top of his talkpage). I have no objection to repealing the failing provision, and I'm certain that Coffee would not object either if he saw how poorly this particular restriction was working out around the wiki.

Of course policy is unclear on what can be done when the sanctioning admin is no longer here, though I've previously assumed responsibility for a sanction imposed by a deceased with no problems. In that case, it may be prudent to seek input from AE anyway. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

• Hello! I vaguely remember asking an arbitrator on IRC if this page would fall under DS for Post 1932 American Politics and I was told in their opinion it would. This is what resulted in the template being added. I honestly can't remember which of the handful of ARBS that were on IRC at the time said it did fall under sanction. Other than that I'm not sure I'm going to be much help in this situation :/ --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 17:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm fairly sure I meant to use the standard discretionary sanctions template it appears as though I may have inadvertently not used the correct one. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 17:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I actually added the small DS Advisement not the one that is currently displayed on the page. I'm not sure how I came across this page this was about 4 months ago. link --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 17:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Looking back at the article page in early March when I added the template it looked like there was either a spree of vandalism (clue bot making multiple appearances) or some sort of edit war which is probably what prompted the addition. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 17:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
      • The new restrictions had been placed by Lord Roem diff --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 17:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • ping @Doug Weller: --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 17:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
    • ping @Cameron11598: Ah, sorry about that. The template's ok, it's just the consensus bit that is now a problem. Doug Weller talk 17:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
      • @Doug Weller: No problem Happy editing! --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 20:41, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
        • Doug forgot to close his small tag. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:12, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
          • Mentioned this at AE, but yeah, my intent was a 1RR restriction and I think the 'consensus required' text came along for the ride. I'm a-okay with updating the template or removing it (though I think a 1RR limit is still a good idea for this article). Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:35, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Dennis Brown. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{

ygm}} template.

Khaled Abolaynain (talk

Hello, Dennis Brown. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{

ygm}} template.

Khaled Abolaynain (talk

Pages about letters, like "T" and "S", have been vandalized. Do most of the articles need pending changes, or is that unnecessary? --George Ho (talk) 23:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

• WP:RFPP is where it should be asked. T hasn't been vandalized in a while, S has a little, but it is a case by case thing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:04, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Dennis Brown. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{

ygm}} template.

Khaled Abolaynain (talk

Hello, Dennis Brown. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{

ygm}} template.

Khaled Abolaynain (talk

Hi Dennis! Northamerica1000 has given you a

crown. Crowns promote WikiLove

and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a crown, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good chum.

♦ A crown for the former emperor of

WT:WER. This can also double as a sleeping mask by pulling it down over your eyes if you get tired. You're welcome in advance, wear it with pride, and enjoy! North America¹⁰⁰⁰

06:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

FYI. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• There is a blunt side to me that I try to not air out too often, as you know. You should have seen the drafts I didn't post. I'm not liking that it was all hatted, but I understand it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:16, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• He hasn't edited articles since I first linked him to SPOILERS, so I think you have to give him time to adapt. I don't have high hopes, but he deserves the same chance I would give any editor. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

FYI, I discovered Kudpung's comment only after posting my !vote. Ok, --IHTS (talk) 00:59, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

• I can take you at your word. We may disagree on interpretation of things, but I know you aren't a liar. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:29, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks. (If you were customer service rep, I'd give a five-star feedback for that. ;) ) --IHTS (talk) 06:35, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

• I get tired of swinging the ban hammer all the damn time. I have some other articles that I'm about to start hardcore on as well, but they aren't food related. I will get back to this one here in a bit, got hot date to go see an afternoon matinee of Despicable Me 3. She and I are both big kids. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:51, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

• I've been clearing out my watchlist lately, but now you went and made me have to add another article to it. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:56, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dennis. I just wanted to ask you a question regarding WER.

Let me start with some background. Back in May of last year, I observed this discussion on your talk page, in which Buster7 said he would no longer be involved with EotW. The thread then turned into a discussion of WER generally. In that thread, you said that you no longer wished to lead the project, that WER had failed, and that WER needed new management to replace you and Buster. Every potential new leader mentioned in that thread declined the offer.

Here is my side of the story: when I read that thread, I started considering whether I could help out at WER. I have experience directing Wikipedia projects, with some degree of success —

However, it became increasingly apparent that WER was becoming an inactive project, except for its EotW component. The main page and the talk page had not been edited for months, and this, according to

Regrettably, though, the conversation deteriorated quite rapidly. My

But I see that meaningful progress will never be made as long as this dispute and drama continues. So I decided that asking you is the best way to resolve the dispute. Based on your previous comments, it seems to me that you are no longer interested in WER, but nonetheless, you are ultimately the founder of the project.

So, are you okay with my effort to revive WER and take part in its management? I will respect whatever decision you make. All I want is a simple answer. If you are fine with it, I will start working on implementing my ideas. If you are not, I will discontinue this whole matter, leave WER just as it is now, and not discuss this any further.

Best regards,

• I have no problem whatsoever with any qualified person helping out at any level, as I have no ownership there. If you want to revive the project, you have my blessing, but it isn't mine that you need, it is the community that is left, which is small but splintered. WER is a tough nut to crack. I never "ran" the project anyway, not in a forceful manner. The designs, the layouts, the ideas, those all came from other editors. My role as Founder of that project was more of a coach rather than a quarterback. Maybe more of a cheerleader, really. When people had ideas, I rallied the troops and got people to volunteer. I tended to give my opinion but not force it. Things often went in directions I would not have chosen, although still in a good direction, and I was quick to accept that. I think that the way you will get people to accept leadership from someone other than me (who has resigned but will still stay listed for instances just like this) is to not ask for leadership, and simply provide it. Lead by example. Propose things but don't argue about them and just accept consensus as it falls. Back those ideas even if they aren't your own, or your first choice. I don't think you can boldly revive WER because it isn't dead, it is just asleep. Being bold wakes up the people who are still invested in the group. And it scares them. Some might think it is an abandonment of the original ideals. It is easier to build on what was there before than start from scratch, but this takes time. If others follow you, it won't be because I endorse you. It will be because you are moving in the direction they want to go. Leadership isn't given, it is earned. You're a good guy, so it is possible, but it won't instantaneous and ultimately, it will be by consensus, and it will be by your own deeds, not my words. Don't push too hard. Focus on helping others with their ideas rather than convincing about your ideas. Then when it is obvious that you are the leader, you won't need my approval. But you certainly have it to try. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:58, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, Dennis, my apologies in advance if you think me posting this here is out of place.

Biblioworm

, what I'm finding ironic is that Dennis is giving you exactly the same advice I did, albeit using many more and much prettier words. Your ideas are good. Your methods suck. A much more politic approach would have been to take the membership list and other materials and create a message to people associated WER and drop it on their talk pages. Something along the lines of: "Hey, if you still care I've got a bunch of ideas (list). How would you feel about me taking a leadership role at WER?" Change in a community the size of Wikipedia is not easy, as I'm sure you realize. It will take political skills to pull it off. What you exhibited yesterday was the antithesis of political skills. You received significant opposition, but continued to push forward. When it became obvious that the opposition was considerable, rather than a straightforward retraction and a clear statement that you were willing to try another approach, you buried it under a hat. You have sound ideas, dammit. Let your failed plan go and move forward. To actually effect some change, you've got to have the communication skills that endear people to work with you. I'm old. I have the skills but do not care to use them anymore (or really to have them used on me. I prefer "Well, that was an ignorant move" to "I know you meant well, but that didn't get the results we wanted. But your a good guy so I'm sure you'll do better next time.") There is some back and forth between Buster, Issac and I on my talk. There's some good suggestions there. Please realize change here is akin to climbing Everest. Difficult but not impossible. Want a starting point? One of the best things ever done for editor retention in Wikipedia is the Teahouse. It is slowly being destroyed by being overrun by paid and otherwise COI editors. IMO, the main reason is that every rejected draft at AfC receives a Teahouse invite. Let's try to develop a strategy to work interproject with AfC, NPP, and Teahouse to develop and staff a Q&A forum just for the advertorial crowd, freeing up Teahouse to do what they were designed to do. Don't expect it to happen tomorrow. There is much to consider prior to even approaching the other projects, or even to start an actual proposal formed enough to try to timeline.

One last thing and I'll leave you and Dennis alone. I'm a project coordinator. It can be as much or as little as you want, but mostly it's scutwork. Many if not most projects don't even have coordinators.John from Idegon (talk) 03:31, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Note Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation/Paid editor help is the existing forum for paid editors to ask questions, though it seems rather desolated at present. Trying to reinvigorate it (and WikiProject Cooperation) might help. isaacl (talk) 05:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you, Dennis, for your insightful and diplomatic reply. As I said in my first post on the WER talk page, I do believe that WER has a great deal of potential. Upon reflection, however, I have decided that involvement with WER is probably not for me. The fact is that, fundamentally, I have an independent personality. I think independently, and I like to work independently. And it is apparent to me that such a personality is just not compatible with WER, or even with Wikipedia, for that matter. I do not apologize for that, and there is nothing I can do about it. I suppose I must have some political and persuasion skills—after all, I am, to date, the only editor in Wikipedia history to instigate successful RfA reforms, while "experienced veterans" had been trying and failing for almost a decade. But as you hinted at, WER has a deeply entrenched core (not that RfA didn't, but at this point, I am starting to tire of such things). I have concluded that it isn't worth it to use whatever time and skills I might have, just to eventually become the "leader" of an
  online project within an online project
  .

I can just as easily propose my reforms

Biblio (talk

) 16:51, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

RfA

Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. ) Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:35, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Deletion review for

Draft:OnePlus 5

An editor has asked for a

• Restored and commented there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Dennis, you're a pitmaster? You've been keeping things from me, old friend. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:23, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• From Abilene originally but lived all over, so it's in my blood. I now live in Lexington, North Carolina, one of the barbecue capitals of the world, so they say. Still using the same propane smoker since 08, and built a steel and screen 18x20 building just for grilling and barbecuing. As you can see, it has Berean Hunter's seal of approval. I made a brisket just a month ago, and some pork ribs the week before that. Girlfriend has a lot of kids/grandkids/inlaws so I have to keep them fed with good Texas style grub, at least on Sundays. And BH was eating brisket smoked with mesquite wood chips and just a little bit of charcoal mixed in the firebox. I'm experimenting with pellets now, which produce a lot of smoke. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:50, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Are they better than chips? What kind of wood(s)?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:41, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I found hickory and mesquite. They crank out a lot more smoke per cubic inch, plus they cost much less than chips. They are obviously manufactured. For smoking or you can toss some on top of charcoal if you want to use them on the grill (Haven't yet). I've only used them twice so far, but they are super easy to use: just pour and put heat on them. No soaking, etc. They burn at about the same rate as chips but produce smoke a little faster. Worth trying. Here's a link, they were cheaper at my walmart, but that is still pretty cheap for a 20 pound bag. [17] Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:57, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll try that. The most smoke that I've gotten out of chips has been from pecan...puffs like a freight train. I'll mix equal parts of cherry and pecan to cut the volume of smoke and the cherry extends the smoking time. I first used that mix with chicken breasts and had excellent results and then on ribs with better results than I expected. My first couple of attempts with 100% pecan didn't get enough flavor so I pushed the boundaries and overdid it...tasted it for two days. Pear and applewood are also good but hickory is my favorite. For working with chicken and turkey breast, I blend hickory with applewood as straight hickory is a bit strong with those. I don't know if mixing pellets and chips would work but my need to blend is there.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Since they are all uniform, they burn evenly, so mixing should be good and help the overall smoking, to be honest. The first ribs I did, I thought they had a little bit too much smoke, but everyone else liked them that way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:11, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Should've known you are a Texian, Dennis. We're keeping the porch light on for when y'all are ready to come home. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 04:18, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

• Yup. When you get ready to make the dive into adminship, let me know. I still think you are overqualified if anything, and the extra tools are handy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:11, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

What is to be expected from "stiff sanctions"? (Not that I intent to get them). The Banner talk 17:45, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Ow, and to prevent future accidents, I have removed the article from my watchlist. The Banner talk 17:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

• It's hard to say without knowing the infraction. I'm not quick to sanction, but I tend to be strong when I do. I prefer giving someone as much rope as I can, but when I have to remove someone from editing an area, my first concern is the other editors who are trying to edit peacefully. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:09, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

sorry but i just mentioned that it is an american corporation listed on the stock exchange. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eltnap (talk • contribs) 18:43, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

• That would be the wrong place to them them, and they don't have an article on Wikipedia, so there is no evidence they are indeed a notable company. Being listed on any stock exchange isn't enough to guarantee notability, particularly since they are an over the counter stock, not actually "listed". Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:11, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Denns, I hate to bug you about this, but following up the earlier conversation: [18], it's been over a month since they edited [19]. Could it be deleted now? Cjhard (talk) 00:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

•  Done Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:01, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Why yes, of course you'd assist in a coverup after harassing my talk page and helping someone to hound me in violation of policy. Why am I unsurprised. Morty C-137 (talk) 22:00, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dennis Brown,

Could you block this user JustLeafy for vandalizing my sandbox twice, and protect it with extended protection? -- 1989 17:41, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

•  Done. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

	The Admin's Barnstar
	You are awesome! Thanks for handing my situation. :) 1989 17:47, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

• No problem. Thanks for bringing it to my attention, he needed to be removed for a variety of reasons. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:52, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

  Your welcome. This website seriously needs more people like you. -- 1989 17:53, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello Dennis, I'm about to start creating a draft for Aireon. Does this company qualify for a Wikipedia article? I pulled out those links. Dievans (talk) 15:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

• Whoa, overload here. First of all, the sheer number of citations is meaningless. What matters is quality. Quality means two things: One, they clearly pass
  WP:AFD. Those guys kind of specialize in this, and I'm really jammed this week at the office, too much so to really dig into this. Dennis Brown - 2¢
  15:51, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the response. Would you please give me a link where I can ask for advice if I can proceed or not? Going through
    WP:AFD, I found deletion discussions for pages about to be deleted. Dievans (talk
    ) 16:55, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Again, AFD is the place. They won't just delete your page. You will be creating a draft page to start, and as long as you are working on it and it doesn't flat out violate some policy, you will be able to procede. You might go ask one of the editors that work at AFD. Articles are the domain of the editors, not admin. We have no special powers or vote when it comes to what stays or goes. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Methinks auto correct may have gotten Dennis. The place you need is

• Thank you! Yes,
  WP:AFD. Thanks, John. Busy day, I missed that mistake. Dennis Brown - 2¢
  18:46, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I also added some welcoming info at his talk. It happens. Stay happy, Dennis! And good luck, Dievans! John from Idegon (talk) 19:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

[20] EEng 19:50, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dennis Brown,

Could you add pending changes protection to the list referenced? It is sometimes vandalized by random IPs and the vandal bot somehow can't detect it. -- 1989 17:52, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

• There has been some disruption with adding low quality unsourced content, and that is at FA, so I went ahead and did indef PC. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dennis Brown, you closed three AFDs a while back, including with offer to provide copies of the deleted articles.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/105 Campestre Torre B
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/105 Campestre Torre A
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Campestre 105 Torre C‎

I voted for "Keep" in the absence of an El Salvador list to redirect to, and you expressed sympathy with that view but chose to delete, which was okay or doesn't matter. Anyhow I'd like to proceed now to create the missing List of tallest buildings in El Salvador article, and expect to merge material and set up redirects from those article names. Could you please provide the articles to my userspace for now (including all edit history please)? sincerely, --doncram 20:12, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

• I already did back in September when you asked me then. I guess you forgot.

• User:Doncram/105 Campestre Torre B
• User:Doncram/105 Campestre Torre A
• User:Doncram/Campestre 105 Torre C‎

Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Wow, yikes, thank you for having done that back then, my bad sorry to bother u again now. Thanks!--doncram 00:59, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Please see

Hi there. Loooong time no talk. I was wondering if you could do me a favor. I'm going through my articles, and trying to fill in the blanks on old film and film bio articles. There's a film director from the 1930s and 1940s, who was a prolific A.D. who worked on some pretty major films: Spartacus, Some Like It Hot, Rio Grande, the original 3:10 to Yuma, and And Then There Were None. It was blocked from creation back in 2009. Any way I could get it unblocked? Thanks. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Just realized, it would probably be nice if I told you the name of the person: Sam Nelson. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:39, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Hi Onel5969, I changed protection to "extended confirmed", so you should be able to create that one now. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 04:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks 78.26. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:45, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that. I'm super swamped at work right now, plus other real life things, mostly good, so I'm scarce. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:48, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Although I've been here a very long time I have never involved myself in user conduct disputes so please understand my ignorance. I have unfortunately become involved with some discussions involving use of draft space (for example WP:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposal: Limited restrictions/topic ban) and one of the other people concerned is Legacypac. I see that he has recently been submitting other people's drafts to AFC[21][22][23] which is a process that can sometimes be abused. I then stumbled into Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive957#Godsy back to Wikihounding - how to stop it? which you closed in June 2017 saying "... Legacypac is restricted to using WP:AFC for their own articles. ...". Is this restriction still in effect and, if so, is Legacypac acting suitably? Thincat (talk) 08:07, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Thincat, there is nothing in that ill conceived restriction I've even come close to breaching, and your bringing it up suggests you failed to read it. This post is boarding on an unsubstantiated personal attack and you will soon join Taku at ANi if you continue down any line of attack against my editing. Legacypac (talk) 13:38, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

First of all, Thincat coming here was perfectly fine as I was an uninvolved admin that closed the last case. To be honest, it is strongly preferred that someone come to an admin before going to ANI when that admin is known to be aware of the situation, so his actions were not only fine, but preferred. There is *nothing* in the original post that even approaches a personal attack, and I would suggest Legacypac reread it again and perhaps apologize.

Secondly, the main gist of that topic ban was to prevent Legacypac from moving articles into mainspace. It did not restrict him from moving articles to AFC. It did restrict him to using AFC for any original articles he wanted to create, instead of just creating them in mainspace. The wording of that close can be a little confusing. I didn't realize that at the time, but can understand the confusion now that I'm reading it, so I completely understand why you would ask for clarification. His moving other people's drafts to AFC is fine. Moving anything into mainspace would not be. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

To clarify, I consider trying to use a absolutely unfair restriction that arose from my efforts to stop significant abuse against myself as pretty low, but I should not have said it bordered on a 'personal attack' because that term has specific on Wiki meaning different from common English. Sorry for that. Legacypac (talk) 14:43, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

You can't blame him for the restriction, nor me since I only summarized what others had said and didn't offer an opinion. I appreciate you recognizing that and saying so. One thing about tbans, it will put you under higher scrutiny, but Thincat really did take the path of least drama to find the answer to his question. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:51, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining the situation and for the way you have handled this. Thincat (talk) 14:53, 22 August 2017 (UTC)