You have deleted a Wikipedia page Walter van Dyk saying "Clearly there is a consensus to delete here" - it seems, however, without studying all the corrections and improvements that were made to the page - the page had suffered a certain amount of neglect in providing reliable sources which was the initial argument for deleting the page and a few administrators jumped on to the bandwagon, while in the interim an extremely comprehensive list of references and citations were being made. One of the last administrators had found a considerable amount of sources to support further discussion on the page just prior to it being deleted. I believe this page has been unfairly deleted since a lot of hard work went in to improving it while at the same time being put forward for further discussion. Could you please review what you have done because everything administrators had pointed out in terms of deleting had been improved. I think this needs to be revised"--WaltervanDijk (talk) 22:03, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• My job isn't to judge the article, it is to judge the consensus. There was a clear consensus to delete as you were the only one who wanted to keep it and a number of people who participated with policy reasons to delete. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:30, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

See my user page for my thoughts on YTer notability. I'd like to have that type of metric (at least as a rule of thumb) because it's nearly impossible to tell what references are promotional and which are due to notability for this type of person. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

• I understand that everyone has their own ideas of what is notable and not, and there are many sub-policies on notability, but they are really meant to be guides. I tend to read GNG very literally. If there are a few sources that obviously pass WP:RS, if the coverage is significant in each of those sources, and it isn't a WP:BLP1E concern, then they meet the criteria for inclusion. I don't think it really matters if they are a YouTuber, footballer, chef or musician, as the policy (should) apply equally to all persons, with all personal opinions set aside. WP:GNG is the mother policy, that which all other notability guidelines derive their authority. Obviously WP:IAR says there are always exceptions but I didn't see any exceptional circumstances in this AFD that would qualify. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:34, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

...to see you're back and in action. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Is it possible to modify my ban per the suggestions I make here[1]. I made those suggestions before the ban was implemented, but I'm not sure if they were seen. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

• Actually, you edited just after me, but your suggestions wouldn't be in the same thoughts as the admin who agreed. Normally, there is no need for a consensus to impose a restriction. This time I chose to form one because it is an unusual situation. It is actually pretty lenient, but the whole point of it is to disallow you to do mass editing. This is where the problem was centered around. At the same time, we haven't stopped you from contributing. As per Lord Roem's concerns, this doesn't mean that other sanctions can't be given if there is a problem, but I feel comfortable that we used the least amount of force in the sanction that we could. Of course, you are welcome to appeal it, per the instruction in the template I'm about to put on your talk page, however, with such a strong consensus of admin in giving the sanction, I wouldn't automatically expect the modification to be accepted. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • If I edit the same political science or econ study to three pages that fall under post-1932 US politics, will it be considered a violation of the ban? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:52, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
    • That is correct. You are free to use the talk page of additional articles and request someone else insert it. I made sure to put in a phrase to that effect in the sanction as to not prevent participation, even if it slows it down. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:02, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
      • I'm sad to say but making requests to talk pages of low-activity pages is futile and a waste of time. The unfortunate consequence of this is that I won't bother adding the same research to more than two pages. So that's the collateral damage. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Also, can you link me to a page that describes what falls under post-1932 US politics? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:52, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
    • The ARB case listed in the template is the best place to find what is and isn't. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:02, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
      • Ok, thanks. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

• This is all correct. You need to remember how we got here. There were serious concerns about your editing and WP:NPOV as it seems you were focusing solely on adding material to many politicians of a single party, material that could be seen as reflecting negatively on them. That isn't allowed. Doing it en mass compounded the problem. We collectively decided to give you the opportunity to correct that error yourself by only limiting the mass contributions. If your editing continues to be biased when taken as a whole, I would expect more sanctions. You need to take these concerns to heart, and take them seriously as you are already under Arb sanction now. By only limiting the mass postings, we have shown a tremendous amount of good faith that you will "get it". Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:27, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

You are aware of this? Jytdog (talk) 20:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for being very unavailable at AE over the last 36 hours; real life has rather got in the way. I'm absolutely fine with your reading of my opinion and your close. GoldenRing (talk) 12:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Just moved your close of the Gahgeer case - if you'd intentionally hatted only the result section then feel free to revert. GoldenRing (talk) 13:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Oops. That is why I shouldn't be allowed to close things before I've had coffee. Thank you :) Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:56, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, since you are an admin, I have something to ask. I am currently working on a newspaper editor's article in my sandbox. I am wandering is it correct to use reports of the newspaper of which he is an editor in his article? For example, Zahid Ali Khan is the editor of Siasat Daily. Can I use this report [2] as a reference in his article? RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 18:23, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• Yes and no. The newspaper appears to pass the standard for a reliable source WP:RS, but the problem is that he is affiliated with the paper, so anything they print about him, as the editor, isn't as "3rd party" as we would prefer. If you are sourcing a non-contentious claim, then it is probably fine (to show he works there, or other basic info). If it is a strong claim, or a contentious one, then you would really want something from a source that is totally independent of Khan. Because he is the editor, it is assumed he has control over the content, so while the source is reliable, this article about him, by his paper, would be a WP:PRIMARY SOURCE. That last link is really worth reading and isn't too long. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:30, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

For deleting my page. I understand that was to much content and I wasn't thinking when I put it up. Dinah Kirkland (talk) 17:45, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

• No problem. Just like to keep things safe around here for my fellow editors. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:46, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Is it alright if put my gender or the languages I speak? (Maybe even like I'm German and Italian etc.)? Dinah Kirkland (talk) 17:54, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

• That is fine. Remember, the primary purpose of your user page is "all things Wikipedia", so saying you speak certain languages, saying you are interested in equine articles (or whatever) is perfectly fine. Just stay away from things that identify you as an individual. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:08, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Alright. I will do that. I only use UserBoxes to describe myself personally now. Dinah Kirkland (talk) 22:26, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

to see you back Dennis. I did not want to pile on when you returned, so just saying it now. Your presence makes WP a slightly saner and wiser place. Every little helps :) Hope things are good with you in the real world too. Simon. Irondome (talk) 00:35, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

+1 to that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:45, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Glad your adminning again too. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:35, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Hear, hear. GAB^gab 14:33, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I am a huge fan of Alice In Wonderland (as seen by my username) and I have prepared a page that I want to create that does not exist yet about Dinah Liddell. If I gave you some of the information I found could you tell me if i should make it into a page or not? Dinah Kirkland (talk) 20:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• The best place to work up a potential article is WP:AFC. That is exactly what they specialize in and would be more helpful than I am. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay grazie! (Thank you!) Dinah Kirkland (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

With regards to this discussion at ANI, what is your opinion on these actions (1,2,3,4,5,6,7, and 8) to circumvent any pending discussion at Module talk:Webarchive and make the same disputed changes to 7 other templates without soliciting any input from other editors? Note: I originally tried to ask the question at ANI, but Codename Lisa reverted me several times. 2601:5C2:280:8043:F126:B333:2DF4:1FEA (talk) 05:49, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

• This is something for ANI, not really my talk page. It is still being discussed there and it should stay there. Not sure who you are, but if it is a big deal rather than just standard edits, someone will raise it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:28, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Ah, so you two have met. This IP address belongs to a person Codename Lisa and I call "flyboy". He has been hounding Codename Lisa for three years now, chasing her around Wikipedia, reverting her actions, digging dirt on her, bad-mouthing her, like this that he is doing. He tried posting this very same edit in WP:ANI but Codename Lisa reverted him. He didn't dare stage an edit war there, because if admins investigate him, things are revealed that are not to his advantage, especially since Codename Lisa and I are keeping a list of all his IPs with which he has operated so far.

FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 11:20, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Because she is involved, she probably shouldn't be the person to revert, but I had already gathered this was nitpicking. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:30, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry? Come again? What revert are we talking about now? FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 11:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm just saying Lisa shouldn't be the one that reverts a complaint about her. I'm not arguing against the revert, just that she did it. If someone files a complaint about me, I shouldn't be the one to revert it. It looks like I'm covering up. I'm not making a big deal of it, just saying best practice is always to let someone else do the revert when you are the subject of a complaint, unless it is obvious vandalism, etc. As for this person hounding, I can see the possibility and trust your judgement on that, but as you can tell, it didn't get much traction here. I'm familiar with Lisa and have been for a long time, just as I am with you. I'm not easily persuaded by a couple of diffs out of context. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

You and admin NeilN certainly have 180-degrees opposing views. He'd revert the sock on sight, even if that sock is complaining about him in my talk page.

And if you wanted diffs about this certain malicious block-evading sock, just say the word, and get ready because you will be buried underneath them. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 11:46, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @FleetCommand: You can't go comparing one admin to another on their own talk. You must know there's such a thing as admin discretion, that's a bit like how you and me have different interpretations, etc, on articles. Have you told NeilN that you think he's a better admin?! :D — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 11:55, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Admins are considered models of our community. (This sentence even appears in the admin policy.) When a model takes a certain action in a situation and that action does not involve using tools, it is a clear sign that others should probably do that same, given the proper circumstances. Now the models seem to have conflicting behavior. This is a more serious issue than not comparing two peers in their own talk pages. What? Are afraid that they are shy girls that get jealous of each other? Huh. In my experience they are more like immovable Titans. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 12:08, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't use the word titan or immovable to describe myself, but of course that is up to the individual. Some admin put accountability higher than a sock, some don't. And note the tone of my words. The flexibility in them. I try to choose my words carefully. My job isn't to tell people what to do as much as provide guidance. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, to be fair I used "immovable titans" as the opposing points of "shy jealous girls", so I could argue that a metaphor shouldn't be nitpicked at. All I am saying is, for a Wikipedian like me who always feels lost and like a pariah, it isn't very pleasant to follow the example of one admin because I think he knows what he is doing, then another admin tell me that I am doing is wrong. This is in fact, a very big concern in the justice system. In our country, each years judges convene to discuss similar charges that received different verdicts from different judges and improve their approach.

That said, show no mercy to this certain sock. As you and I concluded in Wikipedia talk:Template editor, desperate time requires desperate measures. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 14:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

But admin aren't judges or police. If the person is a confirmed sock, then I understand reverting by anyone. If not, my wording was pretty tame. As I said, I'm not making a big deal of it, just saying it is usually less than optimal. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:30, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. I still haven't seen any evidence that the IP is block evading. [3] Whereas my reverts were of this character. I trust even FleetCommand can see the difference. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I believe Codename Lisa emailed you her list. If you haven't seen evidence of block evasion yet, that's because you are lazy and incompetent. Speaking of which, you reverted SineBot and call it "Rv sock", so your incompetence and not seeing has precedent. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 04:33, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I was given a list of user names and a long list of IPs with no diffs presented tying the accounts and IPs together. Open a SPI case with simply a list of names and IP addresses and see how far that gets you. And I reverted the Sinebot edit instead of the preceding edit - shrug. Guess that makes many a Wikipedia editor "incompetent" as that's hardly a rare error. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:06, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, three other admins proved more willing to look at the list and enforce a couple of blocks. And I didn't even open a SPI case. Just because you have held a grudge against me since 2011, doesn't mean that any other admin has. Of course, you go ahead and deny the grudge too. I don't intend to press it. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 09:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

How times change. A while ago, admins were 'models of the community'; now they're 'lazy and incompetent'! I would have thought that accusations such as that are best raised at a noticeboard. IMHO of course. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 10:15, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

The editor FleetCommand refers to [in his edit summary] wasn't reverted because (s)he was a sock. (S)he was reverted for alleged harassment/vandalism, which is a catchall phrase used when an administrator's friends want to shield him from criticism. 86.135.209.240 (talk) 13:59, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't know the specifics, too lazy to go look up such a vague claim, but generalizations are seldom universally true and just as often, they aren't helpful in opening a dialog. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:06, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Some more detail then. The IP whose contributions NeilN was so desperate to keep went on to call another administrator an a***hole and has now been rangeblocked by a competent administrator. 86.135.209.240 (talk) 14:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Not necessary, but the end result isn't shocking. Admin do have access to more info than non-admin and I get the feeling you may be overstating the case a bit, but that is fine. Everyone is an asshole in the eyes of at least someone around here. I just don't take it personal or serious. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:17, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

BTW, 86 is the LTA I mentioned above. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:50, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Having just spotted the above comment, NeilN isn't the one to be making that call, and certainly not without placing any evidence before the community. As Risker commented, "diffs, or it didn't happen". 86.135.209.240 (talk) 16:17, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

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, Dlohcierekim is fairly in on this one, since they've been active in the discussion. User:Oshwah seems at the keyboard and uninvolved though. 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... Dlohcierekim... I know you've had a break in service, but... you may want to cool it a sec and find someone who's uninvolved. 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 WP:DR for the foreseeable future, never probably actually learn to work collaboratively in a way that ever doesn't require the input of scores of outside, and themselves otherwise productive editors, and accomplish little or nothing of lasting value for our trouble. Anyone who's been here for a while has probably had to go through the process of having an article get all up in their emotions. Hopefully most of us learn to recognize that and stop ourselves from repeating it. Unfortunately, losing your hurt-feelings-Wikipedia-virginity can be a messy process. 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 WP:WIKIHOUNDING, pure and simple. What to do here? Sagecandor (talk) 00:41, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

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 "fraud" back into the page a 2nd time, [10]. This needs to be removed from the page per WP:BLPCRIME and 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 Danial Schon is being redirected to Schon Properties - i would like this page to be considered for wiki listing. All the previous content has been lost, would this mean we have to recreate and redo all the information that was there. Please advise. Mahmoodyaqub (talk) 12:38, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

• It was changed to a redirect due to the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danial Schon, where the community decided to do this. I've reverted your edits as they are against policy once an AFD has taken place. You can appeal this 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 2017 Congressional baseball shooting page a lot. Could you take a look (or recommend another editor to look) at the 2017 Qatar diplomatic crisis page? The volume of edits has calmed down enough that it should be possible to have some stability.

Power~enwiki (talk) 23:59, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

• 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. Power~enwiki (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. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Now that Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Godsy back to Wikihounding - how to stop it? is closed, how should I handle personal attacks being made against me at miscellany for deletion by the original poster in that WP:AN/I thread:

• 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 made a comment specifically about me then later removed my civil reply to it, a clear violation of WP:TPOC. I apologize for bringing this here again, I don't know where else to turn; feel free to revert this post and I won't bring this matter here again. They are demonstrably breaking our behavioral rules in very clear ways to attack and attempt to silence me. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 03:07, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

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:AN. I don't take it personal. I think it will do you more harm than good, but it is your choice. Closing isn't exactly an admin action (except 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)

• Boing! said Zebedee isn't exactly a block happy admin, and that is an unusual block, but it is also an unusual circumstance. The same could be said of CambridgeBayWeather, who has never been one to chase people to block. If you are asking for an explanation under 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 GS/SCW&ISIL remedies you'll see that some remedies are very specific. 1RR is mentioned explicitly, and it applies to all related articles, broadly construed. Erlbaeko was first blocked for violating 1RR. Then for "refusing to adhere to discretionary sanctions restrictions", which looks like a DS block, but I don't think it is or the block would not be indefinite and the sanction would need to be logged. Dennis Brown, I think, is arguing that 1RR block was valid because remedies mention 1RR, and "consensus required" restriction is not actionable on ARBAPDS pages because it's not mentioned in ARBAPDS remedies. Politrukki (talk) 14:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Dennis Brown: I find your close and comments at AE really puzzling. One admin says that "consensus required" remedy is not actionable. Another one says it is. Two admins say that the request does not need action. You say that four admins agree that the request is not actionable. Correct me if I'm wrong, please, but "close with no action" ≠ "not actionable". "Close with no action" result would have been reasonable, but this is much worse because ultimately there was no opportunity to correct the record regarding applicability of remedies. The opinion that arbitration remedies are not actionable on edits related to American politics is simply not based on policy. WP:ARBAPDS authorises applying standard discretionary sanctions, which again allow imposing "consensus required" restrictions and more: without standard DS imposing 1RR restrictions could not be enforced. If "consensus required" restriction is inapplicable to pages under ARBAPDS, then it's equally inapplicable to SCW&ISIL, since there's no mention of "consensus required" restriction in SCW&ISIL remedies, but that's beside the point.

I generally hate the consensus restriction, but I still have to abide by the rules. 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 decisions are not based on consensus. This means that admins who who take action and close any WP:AE discussion do so unilaterally. Sometimes with others agreeing, sometimes against the majority of participants. My close reflects my observations only. I did not attempt to summarize any consensus as WP:AE is the only administrative board that does not operate on a consensus model. In this particular case, everyone but you agreed that sanctions were not needed. You are free to appeal the close at WP:AE or WP:AN, although I doubt anyone would find anything contentious or controversial in the close. Note that I implied that the discussion regarding "consensus required" should go to WP:ARCA, not 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. WP:ATD-M is policy and no part of any of the three deletion votes mentions any other reason for deleting the content, nor does any advocate deletion without redirection. If you'll look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons/Article alerts, there's a whole bunch of these being closed as merge. Why should this one be any different just because a couple of people failed to show up before the debate closed? Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 05:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

• 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:ATD-M, deletion is not a policy-based outcome when 1) notability is the only complaint and 2) there is a merge target. Both of the final two delete votes misrepresent policy: Benjar's is at odds with point 14 of 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. JoJo Eumerus mobile (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 WP:ARBPIA being rescinded back in May. It has been applied to 34 articles under AP2 this year (again, according to DSLOG) - 31 of those have been applied by @Coffee:, with the remainder applied by @Doug Weller: and @BU Rob13:. I'd argue that these should also be rescinded - however there's not an obvious way to go about it, since Coffee hasn't edited since mid-April and is responsible for the vast majority of them. Is the next step ARCA? GoldenRing (talk) 15:10, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Khaled Abolaynain (talk) 23:38, 20 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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Khaled Abolaynain (talk) 00:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Khaled Abolaynain (talk) 00:28, 21 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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Khaled Abolaynain (talk) 00:33, 21 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)

Aaimran has made some nasty remarks. All I did was reverted his edits of Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom when he removed source material. Then you guys tried to reason with him and even you tried to encourage him when you passed WP:SPOILERS. But all he did was cocked that attitude at us, mainly at me. BattleshipMan (talk) 15:39, 19 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 — RFA2015, for instance. I had many ideas for taking WER in a new direction, since I have a long history of advocating for change and reform on Wikipedia. However, I decided that I did not have the time at that moment.

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 WikiProject Council's guide, is the hallmark of an inactive project. And that guide states the following: "Any editor may revive ... an inactive or semi-active project." So per that guide, your call for new management, and WP:BOLD, I finally posted a notice on the WER talk page yesterday, stating that I would step up, revive the project, and volunteer to become WER's new "coordinator" (that was the term you had used, so I saw nothing wrong with continuing its use). I mentioned that I would leave EotW completely untouched, and would just overhaul the other, abandoned parts.

Regrettably, though, the conversation deteriorated quite rapidly. My bold, good-faith effort to start a new chapter for WER was (in one case) met with edit summary insults and profanity, and was also described as a "coup." Additionally, ANI threats entered the picture. I suggested that we move on and start discussing how to actually improve WER, but this attempt was reversed. I saw this whole affair as bitterly ironic, since the entire purpose of WER is to promote civility and editor retention.

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, Biblio (talk) 17:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

• 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 on my own, without being part of a project. And that is what I will do. This WER matter can now be considered settled, as I will leave WER to continue operating exactly as it does now. Thanks again, Biblio (talk) 16:51, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

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

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Draft:OnePlus 5. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 17:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

• 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:RS in that they are independent of the subject matter (no blogs, no press releases, no self published sites), and second, that the article is focused purely on that company. Not just mentioning it, not just talking about how they are trying to raise money, but talk about what they actually DO. WP:SIGCOV covers this, as does WP:CORP Much of these looks suspect, but again, way too many for me to sit and read all of them in the middle of my work day. My suggestion is to use 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 WP:AFC, Dievans John from Idegon (talk) 18:44, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you! Yes, WP:AFC will help you *avoid* 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 WP:AN#Appeal my topic ban, where you're quoted. Nyttend (talk) 22:04, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

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)