User talk:Dennis Brown/Archive 42

Archive 35

←

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Group rights

You neither need extended confirmed nor IPBE since they are bundled in with sysop. Just saying.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 16:54, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

It's confusing that IPBE is both the name of a group and the name of a right. However only the IPBE group contains the right needed to edit with Tor (torunblocked). I've just made a comment about that at AN. However, extended confirmed - yup, unnecessary. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:02, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

That is so weird. That's about as pointless as abuse filter being a separate permission as well. You might as well bundle them if you can add them.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 17:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually, my test was pretty conclusive that IPBE allows TOR while Sysop doesn't. Sysop bit should allow TOR as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:40, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

At the time it was set up, there had been a few admin socks created using Tor. I don't know if that played any part, but because of this I actually think it wasn't such a bad decision. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:45, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, I bypassed it pretty easily. Kind of like a latch on a screen door....with no screen. TOR isn't magical, I find functional open proxies all the time that aren't TOR, it just isn't as convenient. When I worked SPI regularly, I used to be amazed at how many improperly configured routers were out there, and how easy it was to find them using basic tools. I get why we block TOR, and why we grant IPBE to editors to use TOR, I just don't get why we still don't trust admin to unless they manually flip the bit themselves. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how me having TOR will help me if I go rogue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:53, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Tor helped those admin socks stay undiscovered for a considerable time - Poetlister et al was one batch of them and there was at least one other. So now when you see an admin is using Tor, you can always take another look. Not saying it's a perfect strategy, it's just the way it is. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

If the idea is to keep admins from using TOR, then IPBE shouldn't be givable/revokable by sysops who can easily just bypass that. They should be handed out by 'crats or stewards then.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 08:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

The idea isn't to keep admins from using Tor, it's to ensure that we're aware when admins are using Tor. As Zzuuzz points out above, Wikipedia has had serious issues in the past with admins (and at least one checkuser) using Tor for their good-hand account to make it difficult to make the connection—forcing an admin who wants to use Tor to effectively make a public statement that they're doing so is a feature, not a bug. (It's a feature that appears to be working, too; there's not been a repeat of Ecoleetage, RickK or Archtransit for a long time.) ‑ Iridescent 08:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

A comment

Pub cheese rocks, D.B. Enjoy my arcane comment. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:50, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Case opened

You were recently listed as a party to or recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arthur Rubin. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arthur Rubin/Evidence. Please add your evidence by 13 September 2017, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arthur Rubin/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Mkdw ^talk 05:33, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Scott Delaney?

Hi Dennis, it's been a long time, but I've been silently following your travails and triumphs, and it's good to see you're back here. I don't know if you remember User:Scott Delaney aka User:Anderson, but I think it's possible, based on geolocation to Australia, disruption, interaction style, and subject matter edited, that 175.103.25.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 175.103.25.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) may be him. Could you take a quick look and see what you think? Thanks. Mojoworker (talk) 17:17, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

• I do remember him, CIR issue, worked on radio stations and the like. I'm a bit swamped to look right now, maybe another admin can, or I can get to it in time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:51, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd forgotten about the radio stations, it was edits regarding airports that raised my suspicion. No hurry – look when you can if nobody else does in the interim. Mojoworker (talk) 23:25, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Ah yes, the airports. My girlfriend is moving in, so I'm stuck with a large list of honey-dos and lifting of heavy objects, which is trying for an old guy like me. Good times, but hard work getting it done. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:29, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't remember them well enough to make a judgement as to whether it's the same person, but it looks as if they aren't being terribly productive. I'm not sure what would be the best solution. They don't seem to be disruptive enough for an indef, and there are other problems associated with indeffing IPs anyway. ~Awilley (talk) 21:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Editing restriction clarification

Can you clarify whether these edits violate the editing restriction you placed on Snooganssnoogans?

Climate Change:

• Jon Ossoff - He accepts the scientific consensus on climate
• Tim Walberg - Walberg rejects the scientific consensus on climate change
• Ed Gillespie - Asked in 2014 if accepted the scientific consensus on climate change
• Scott Pruitt - Rejection of the scientific consensus on climate change
• Joe Barton - Barton rejects the scientific consensus on climate change

Paris Agreement:

• Karen Handel - She supports President Trump's decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement
• Kevin Yoder - Yoder supported President Trump's withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement
• Ed Gillespie - Gillespie supported President Trump's decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris
• Elise Stefanik - She described the decision by the Trump administration to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement as "misguided"

James J. Lambden (talk) 19:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• I would love to, but honestly, I'm working around the clock right now and barely have time to check in each day. I'm hopeful that another admin that watches my page will see this and follow up. This isn't something I would want to rush to judgement on, nor would I want to just glance and not give it the investigation it deserves. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

That's fair, thank you. There is no rush.

@Snooganssnoogans:: "given that he has been stalking me for months and is desperately trying to trip me up" That is untrue. Please retract it. I am not claiming you have schemed to insert the same text in multiple articles. I am claiming you have an apparent bias which makes its way to your edits through phrasing, content choice and timing, and that the effect is no different than if you had.

1. Examples of content choice: above

2. Example of timing: While Gillespie (R) and Northam (D) are campaigning you edit both articles:

• "Northam opposed President Trump's decision to rescind Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)" (this is non-notable as I believe every Democrat opposed Trump's decision)
• "Asked in 2014 if accepted the scientific consensus on climate change, Gillespie at first dodged the question but when pressed again, answered..."

3. Examples of phrasing:

• "Farenthold endorsed Trump in the 2016 presidential race, even after the revelation of a tape where Trump boasted about sexually assaulting women."
• "found that the film made numerous false and unsubstantiated claims"
• "has on multiple occasions made false or unsubstantiated claims"
• "He periodically makes false and unsubstantiated claims"
• "His views on trade are widely considered fringe and misguided"
• "has been widely regarded as promoting a number of falsehoods and conspiracy theories"

The effect is almost always to frame the Republican/Conservative politician or position in the worst possible light. The volume of your edits and the fact that many of the articles you edit have few watchers result in a gradual but cumulatively significant skew away from NPOV which in many cases will go uncorrected. This behavior was acknowledged in past enforcement requests and has not changed.

My intention is not to "trip you up." I submitted my findings to Dennis Brown to evaluate as a neutral party and I intend to abide by his decision. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:42, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• • • • None of what you bring up there relates to my custom-made ban. If you want to have content disputes, do so on the talk pages for those articles. I have zero interest in dissecting those articles with you. I just want to note how ludicrous this is: James claims that I always try to frame the Republican position "in the worst possible light", yet his own examples of this egregious bias includes me adding text on Republicans supporting Trump's withdrawal from the Paris Agreement but also Republicans opposing the withdrawal (Elise Stefanik). I'm apparently Schrödinger's Editor: simultaneously adding bias to Wikipedia by adding GOP support for a Republican action but also GOP opposition to a Republican action.

• • • • As for evidence of you stalking me, here are five examples (I'm sure there are more) of you (i) going to pages that you've never edited before on the same day (or within a few days) that I happened to add lots of content to those pages and then you (ii) mass-removing all the content that I added for baseless and disingenuous reasons. In almost every instance, the content was fully restored for the simple reason that there was no merit to your reverts. They were only done out of spite:

• • • • • Daily Caller (16 August 2017): I edit, James reverts me a few hours later [1](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Daily_Caller&offset=&limit=500&action=history)
        • Fox News (16 August 2017): I edit, James reverts me a few hours later [2](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fox_News&offset=&limit=500&action=history)
        • Sanctuary city (21 April 2017): I edit, James reverts me a few minutes later. James used extremely disingenuous edit summaries and talk page rationales to remove research covered extensively by reliable sources. [3](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sanctuary_city&offset=&limit=500&action=history)
        • Peter Navarro (7 March 2017): I edit, James reverts me a few hours later. Extremely disingenuous edit summaries and talk page rationales. [4](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Navarro&offset=&limit=500&action=history)
        • Immigration and Crime (25 February 2017): I edit, James reverts me a few hours later. [5](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Immigration_and_crime&offset=&limit=500&action=history)

• • • • I'm pretty sure he does the same to Volunteer_Marek. I noticed on at least one occasion that James following Marek to a page that James had never edited before, only to revert whatever Marek wrote. Illegal immigration to the United States (a page that I patrol, which I how I noticed this): Volunteer Marek edits, James reverts a few hours later. [6](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States&offset=&limit=500&action=history) . Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• • These are not the same edits. Each edit is uniquely worded and sourced, and are obviously not part of some systematic effort (as shown by the dispersed dates, sources and contexts of each edit – I explain each edit further down). I was not banned from making multiple edits that broach the same topic (e.g. environment, migration, crime, economy) or using consistent language across pages (e.g. using the term “scientific consensus on climate change”, “unauthorized immigrant”, “A Study from Year X found Y”). Furthermore, these edits are weeks or months between one another. The edits in question are strewed across hundreds or thousands of my edits. Some of these edits are a few bytes among thousands that I added to each article (Ossoff, Handel, Gillespie, Pruitt). If you’re a prolific editor, you’re bound to broach the same topic or use a similar sentence fragment on a few pages across weeks and months. I have been extremely careful not to copy the same text from one page to another (this is something that James Lambden is perfectly aware of given that he has been stalking me for months and is desperately trying to trip me up - if I weren't unfamiliar with Wikipedia protocol and afraid of getting boomeranged due to a potentially erroneous report, I'd have brought him up for WP:HARASS long ago). Here are some extremely frustrating examples where I refrained from copy-pasting text or rephrasing existing text on the chance that it'd be considered a violation of my ban: [1](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARefugee&type=revision&diff=794781304&oldid=794779190), [2](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Neutrality&oldid=785262056#Ian_Fletcher), [3](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drmies&oldid=798031419#Predatory_publishers).

• • Climate change
    • 12 June 2017: The Ossoff sentence is about his view on climate change, where a quote of his also added. This edit was one of countless to the Ossoff article.
    • 31 May 2017: Tim Walberg. His position and then a quote. Sourced to a news report from that day.
    • 6 September 2017: Ed Gillespie. An enormous edit where I added a comprehensive list of positions based on WaPo reporting. His view on climate change was one of many, and I added a quote from him where he explains his view on the topic in question.
    • 2 June 2017: Scott Pruitt: I tweaked the language of a header to more accurately describe its content. The whole section was about his rejection of the scientific consensus on climate change.
    • 4 September 2017: Joe Barton. I tweaked existing language here. I even removed the statement that TIME had branded him a “long-time denier of global warming” and VICE had called him a “climate change denier”, opting instead for the more neutral and WP:Fringe-consistent “rejects the scientific consensus on climate change”.

• • Paris Agreement
    • 8 June 2017: In my edits to the Karen Handel page, I wrote a whole paragraph on her views on the environment, of which her view on the Paris Agreement was one issue.
    • 12 September 2017: I added Kevin Yoder’s view on the issue, and a summary of why he holds the view, namely that the costs are greater than the benefits.
    • 6 September 2017: Ed Gillespie. The same as with the Handel page. This is one sentence in an enormous edit where I comprehensively outlined his views on issues.
    • 2 June 2017: Elise Stefanik: She was the first Republican to condemn the Paris withdrawal. I added her view on the issue and the language that she used.

• • The similarities between sentence fragments are accidental. Every time that I’ve written text that relates to the Paris Agreement or climate change on a politician's page, it’s been impromptu (as the dates, diversity of sources and tweaking of language above show). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi Dennis, thank you for your comments at my RfA. Your support is much appreciated! ansh666 22:13, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• Not a problem, I think you will do well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:19, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Not here

I just spent two weeks with pneumonia and still having to work two jobs, which is why I haven't been around much. I don't recommend it. It may be a while til I can get back to being here regularly, as I have a lot of stuff going on. I do try to pop in for a few minutes every day or two, maybe even correct some spelling in an article if I just happen to notice it, but I don't have the time for extended issues right now. Wish I did, but I don't. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:19, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi Dennis, thank you for your comments at my RfA. Your support is much appreciated! ansh666 22:13, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• Not a problem, I think you will do well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:19, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Not here

I just spent two weeks with pneumonia and still having to work two jobs, which is why I haven't been around much. I don't recommend it. It may be a while til I can get back to being here regularly, as I have a lot of stuff going on. I do try to pop in for a few minutes every day or two, maybe even correct some spelling in an article if I just happen to notice it, but I don't have the time for extended issues right now. Wish I did, but I don't. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:19, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

TRM block

Hi Dennis. I apologize that I did not reply to the substance of your proposals at AN today. However, I did not want to enter into the discussion of the substance, and the only way to not do it was not to reply. Now we have posted the statement, feel free to respond at AN.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:48, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• More or less along my thinking. Yes, GW should have been more verbal, but I think that is minor. What I didn't see covered so much is that Arb may not set policy, but they may set rules up for specific sanction types, which is why it was legitimate to remove TPA to start with. Of course, the community can overrule that. I disagree that 2/3rds is the threshold, however. I don't think you can put a fraction on it, and a simple 2/3rds majority would have had me still maintaining the status quo, rather than overturn what seems to be a legitimate Arb enforcement. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:45, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

  Well, WP:NOCON says that no consensus means overturning the sanction, and we specifically justified why we did not do it.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:48, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

  I got that, and I agree with that, so I suppose you did address it fair enough. This is one of those unusual cases. Most situations are not woven with Arb restrictions, so common sense has to be used. I'm not in love with that clause that says the action is normally reverted.. I think that is short sighted, as there are plenty of examples of when no consensus should mean leaving the status quo, but this is getting off the current issue. It puts a lot of pressure on closing, and potentially another discussion to discuss the close in some cases. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:56, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

  I am not a fan of these policies either, but currently I lack energy starting a move to change them.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

  (watching:) The word "justified" has a strange ring in the context, - forgive me. Can you, Ymblanter, speaking for three, please translate "we trout" to plain English? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:03, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

  We think this was a bad move, mainly because it was unclear whether this is an action performed by an arbitrator or an ordinary administrator. However, we think that undoing the action (either removing protection or converting to the revocation of the talk page access) in this situation would create more problems that it could solve.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

  How can we prevent such a thing happening again? - If I was GW, I'd have reverted myself after the first three well-founded comments of concern on her talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:50, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

  It depends on what you are unhappy with. If you do not like the ArbCom previous decision, it can be contested. If you do not like the fact that a sitting arbitrator was involved in the arbitration enforcement and made some mess - somebody must open an RfC to oitlaw this. If you are generally unhappy with the behavior of GW as arbitrator - do not vote for her next time and possibly bring the episode up at the next elections. I think these are pretty much the options.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

  That covers the options. I assumed it was her acting as admin, since Arbs have no special power outside of their domain. It isn't even about me agreeing or disagreeing with her action, it is about whether or not the action was reasonable (even if sloppy). I don't like the phrase they added to allow removal of his TPA either, but no one has appealed it that I know of, so it stands. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:26, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

  My happiness or unhappiness are of no concern here, fairness or unfairness is. I think the whole block was not necessary (and not good for Wikipedia, - just look at how much time was spent on discussing it, time that could have gone into articles), but am most concerned about the protection of the talk, because transparent communication is most essential. We all who wanted to speak up on the TRM talk were kind of blocked, - that's how it feels. Just see his user page which some used as an alternative. - I mentioned the upcoming arb elections to GW, in an early comment. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:31, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

  Correction: by now, the user page was also protected, so you need to look back. The edit summary said "please email the user with support". Yes, sure, but I also want to express my support and thanks openly here. Today is Thanksgiving in Germany. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:46, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

  I'm not arguing against your logic, and I very much doubt I would have done what GW did in that particular case, but it was within the limits, and the block period was in line with expectations. My opinions weren't about the block anyway, they were about the read of consensus, which it turns out my opinion wasn't so radically different. I'm sympathetic to the frustration regarding having the page locked so no one could comment in any way, but at the same time, I find it hard to believe that all of TRM's troubles are caused by persons other than himself. I also do not believe he always gets a fair shake in other venues, but that doesn't absolve him of his actions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to hear you have been feeling rough Dennis

Amoxicillin BP

I hope you had a good course of our friends on the left and it has shifted now. It's a S.O.B to get. Get your strength back soon Dennis. Kind regards, Simon, a.k.a Irondome (talk) 10:59, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry if have been feeling a bit ruff

Yes, very sorry if have been feeling a little ruff, Dennis. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:12, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Zo, ve meet again Flight sergeant Ovens, vis your accursed punz. Vorse they get! But ve haf vays to break even your sporits! 48 hours listening to zis, and your marmite rations he halfed! Zus you vill feel ze burn. Dismiss! Irondome (talk) 11:39, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you. It has been a rough month. More doctor's visits to come; I'm ready to get back to good health. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:54, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Dennis Brown. You have new messages at Investigativereporter's talk page.
Message added 17:24, 11 October 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— fortunavelut luna 17:24, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Dennis Brown, old friend. I am so happy you are still around. You make the place better. Cheers! Drmies (talk) 04:26, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Color me puzzled

Your edit clearly has the word "socking" in the first sentence, yet it seems to render as "sicking". What am I missing?--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

It looks like "sicking" was introduced with this edit by @Littleolive oil:. I assume it was inadvertent but I'm not sure how it happened or whether there is anything else changed at the same time. Not a big deal just very puzzling.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:43, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Appears to be fixed. Eventually, the community and Foundation will come around and create a more realistic approach to paid editing, one that doesn't encourage or discourage, and simply allows open monitoring without harassment and impossible to meet requirements. I WANT to be monitoring paid editors. The TOS makes that impossible. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:37, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello Dennis Brown:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:42, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

WP:CLEAN

	Hello Dennis Brown: You are invited to join WikiProject Cleanup, a WikiProject and resource for Wikipedia cleanup listings, information and discussion. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. North America1000 15:42, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

"Bad faith ANI"?

tldr
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why don't you take the time to review the evidence I presented at ANI? Consider, as well, comments like these: "Reading through the diffs supplied, there is clearly some WP:CRYBLP going on here. It does vary somewhat: some of the reversions are removing negative material that is clearly sourced to non-RSes; some of it is removing well-sourced material that is negative to the subject; some of it is removing primary-sourced (and frankly bizarre) things the subject has undoubtedly said; some of it is adding in positive material not supported by the sources; and some of it is removing well-sourced material on downright false pretences. What pretty well every edit SPECIFICO has made to that article over the period the diffs cover has in common is that it's positive to the subject and in my view it amounts to POV-pushing."; "We don't boomerang for well-documented, well-founded complaints, however poorly-formatted they are."—GoldenRing "SPECIFICO's conduct on that page over months has been utterly disruptive and unhelpful. They remove anything they don't like, and insert anything they do like, citing various policies ("that's a BLP violation; that's not NPOV") while wilfully disregarding what those policies actually say or mean. They have literally bogged down the talk page with non-sequiturs and bizarre claims about what sources are supposedly OK or not and what those sources supposedly say. They appear literally to not read or understand what other people are saying to them. It's made trying to edit or improve that page pointless."—User:N-HH You can't consider the evidence I presented and statements I made about SPECIFICO in complete isolation from SPECIFICO's actual conduct. SPECIFICO's rap sheet includes an Austrian Economics TBAN and a block for "Creating an unappealing editing environment"; although she has not received administrative sanction in several years, numerous users have expressed concerns that her underlying conduct has not improved much. According to User:JFG: "From the standpoint of improving the encyclopedia, my main issue with SPECIFICO's contributions is a tendency to criticism of other editors, off-topic comments and systematic opposition on talk pages with very few constructive contributions in terms of actual editing of contents." Even editors that generally agree with SPECIFICO, such as User:MjolnirPants, were flabbergasted by her months-long denial that the CIA ever said Iraq had WMD: "And for the record, I accept the notion that SPEC's edits were 'denying that the CIA ever said Iraq had WMD'. Sorry SPEC, but this is pretty clear." And if remarks like these are cruel "personal attacks," what do you make of SPECIFICO's repeated insinuations that User:Darouet, User:Thucydides411, and myself are "misogynist(s)" guilty of "mansplaining" and in need of "some gender education," or that JFG may actually be a "Russian troll"?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 15:43, 27 October 2017 (UTC) BTW, I have repeatedly thanked SPECIFICO for her occassional good edits and joined her side in multiple recent content disputes (e.g., here and here), but she has continued to revert many of my edits in what appears to be a blind manner motivated by personal animosity, often after following me to pages she has never previously edited. I can provide a long list of examples if that is desired, but the pattern is on full display in this latest dispute, in which SPECIFICO followed me to Executive Order 13771—which she never edited before—six hours after my last edit to that page, as a prelude to challenging this edit to Presidency of Donald Trump; I then produced a lengthy excerpt at Talk:Presidency of Donald Trump to demonstrate that SPECIFICO's rationale for deletion ("opinion piece makes no definitive evaluation of Trump effectiveness in reducing Administrative State regulation") bears absolutely no resemblance to the source in question. Again, I am not the only editor that has noticed SPECIFICO stalking their contributions; Thucydides411 observed the same phenomenon. For the record, I previously emailed MelanieN to request that she make an edit to Presidency of Donald Trump on my behalf, citing my fear that it would be blindly challenged under Discretionary Sanctions if SPECIFICO saw that I made it. MelanieN did not respond to the email, but she ended up making edits comparable to what I proposed here and here. Sure enough, those edits were not reverted by SPECIFICO, even though SPECIFICO previously reverted a related edit when I made it—in fact, the content was only there for MelanieN to update because SPECIFICO partially restored it, apparently on accident, while she was reverting yet another of my edits. Both of SPECIFICO's reverts contained only the one-word edit summary "UNDUE"; the "Salary" content she deleted was ultimately reinstated per overwhelming talk page consensus. Who is "harassing" whom?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 15:53, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

The way it was done begs to question the faith. I haven't said Specifico is as pure as the driven snow, and in fact, that might be why the first time I closed the AE, I didn't do anything but warn. Regardless, I'm not going to debate this on my talk page. I'm recommending there the least amount of sanction that permits editors other than you Specifico to edit in peace. And I did point out the problems with a one sided interaction ban. At the end of the day, my concern is first with the reader, and second with editors who don't cause drama, then everyone else. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Your essay

Hi, I added new shortcut to your essay WP:DWS. I only find it after many attempts. Also it is not linked in many sock-related pages. This shortcut will help me and many others too. Thanks for writing it–Ammarpad (talk) 13:12, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

• And I sent a thanks for that edit. Very good idea, I appreciate you making it easier to find. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:13, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Forcepoint

Hi Dennis. I was wondering if you had the time/interest in participating here. I disclosed my COI and shared a draft about a month ago. Another editor I know said he would take a look when they get a chance, but I don't think they ever got around to it. CorporateM (Talk) 18:50, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• I will try but can't promise. I've been swamped lately, and this is the slow time of year for me. Boss is a total jerk and won't cut me any slack, but that is the life of the self-employed. ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:09, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Your interaction with User:Snoog earlier this year

You appear to have indicated that the user identified above is topic restricted for no edits in contemporary politics. Recently, I informed that editor that the page for Peter Navarro was closely related to and a part of the American politics page for the 2017 election campaign of Donald Trump. That editor apparently decided to say nothing about the previous ban in order to prevail during Talk page discussion for Navarro. I have no interest in any more editing of the article with its BLP problems, and would like to know if you lifted the topic restriction on that user for contemporary politics (your original warning to that editor was for no editing in American Politics after 1932 made on 24 May 2017). The article for Navarro is only a start article though I am told that BLP issues should be taken seriously at Wikipedia. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 15:19, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

• You really have to provide some links to where I made this claim that he was topic banned. Was it as AE? etc. I'm happy to look into the case, but you have to provide the basis for your claim. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:01, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back on this. This is the edit where you and another editor were discussing the arbitration result restricting Snoo from last May here: [1] and here [2] as two examples. There are over a dozen edits made by you making it plain to Snoo that he is not to edit American Politics articles after 1930. My own multiple notifications to Snoo that he was making political edits on an active political campaigner for Donald Trump [3] were made on the Talk page for Peter Navarro, which Snoo choose to ignore in order to prevail on the Talk page. I can provide all the links (about 12) from your contribution history from last May if you need them with your Armcom result as needed. I have no interest in any more editing of the Peter Navarro start article with its BLP problems, and would like to know if you lifted the topic restriction on Snoo for contemporary politics since he has removed [4] all traces of the system page ban made by you from his Talk page and he is currently editing contemporary politics oriented pages. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 15:40, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• • • If I wasn't so busy offsite, I would look deeper and just deal with it myself, but I really don't have the time to explore this to the level that it requires to take administrative action and be fair to both sides. You really should consider filing at WP:AE so a panel of admin can look at it. It is pretty simple to do, just provide the links for the previous sanction, proof they are violating it, and the admin do the rest. Any admin there can act unilaterally, so it doesn't require a vote, although often several admin will opine, just providing feedback to each other, then one will act. You don't see much drama there, it isn't like ANI, it is way more structured. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• The only entry I see in WP:DSLOG for Snooganssnoogans is this restriction from June 2017, which bans them from mass edits on American politics. Mass edits were defined as adding the same material to more than two articles. EdJohnston (talk) 13:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks to EdJ for clarifying that. The arbitration was originally requested by TParis with DennisB making the following observation: "I would go beyond a 'trout' and instead strongly warn you (Snoo) that your edits do in fact border on NPOV violations when taken as a group and are rapidly approaching the point of sanction. I can accept that sometimes passion about a topic can cloud someone's judgment, but this isn't a justification, it is just a potential reason. When you edit here, you have to put your personal opinions to the side and find that inner kernel of objectivity, and if you can't, you need to avoid the topic or only use the talk page to suggest edits. Wikipedia does have serious issues with objectivity in political articles on the whole, so perhaps Masem is correct in that we need a larger discussion on the topic. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 08:13, 21 May 2017 (UTC)." Since I have no further edits for the politically oriented page of Peter Navarro or its related page at "2016 Trump election campaign", my only concern is that the Peter Navarro page is being maintained with its current BLP issues and NPOV issues by Snoo who has openly self-identified his own low opinion of Navarro. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 16:36, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Cat Creek

Thanks for cleaning that up. One thing I might suggest might be to completely delete the page and then selectively restore the good diffs, as was done back in 2013 - assuming you have the patience (which is the reason I haven't done it myself, a man's got to know his limitations, after all!). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

• @The Bushranger:, I thought about that, but that would have given a lot of good editors "deleted contribs" and some get funny. I had to do it in stages, including deleting the edit summaries of the good guys who reverted them, because it mentioned the socks names, in between dealing with customers. If you think wiping the whole set is better, I would take no offense. I took the long road really to just not monkey with edit counts and to make the history still view-able. Sort of. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:07, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  • That's more than fair enough. Like I said, I would personally delete the lot so they couldn't even point at a screen full of strikeouts, but I do not have the patience or the trust in myself not to slip up somewhere. Hopefully one day soon the lot of them will get tired, anyway! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:01, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I was debating upping the protection from expiring next month to indefinite. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:07, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving

	Happy Thanksgiving
	A little early, but still... Wishing you a day of celebration, relaxation, and happiness. If you don't celebrate, pass this on to someone who does! -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:43, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Forcepoint

I think a consensus has emerged, but nobody has volunteered to do the honors. I was wondering if you were comfortable performing the merge at this point, presuming you feel it's ready. CorporateM (Talk) 14:56, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• Database kept barfing on me, but I got it done. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Dennis, would you mind undoing that merge? It has messed up the history, and it makes it hard for new editors and readers to see where a paid version was inserted. The usual practice is for an editor, after reviewing, to add the paid version in one diff, linking in the edit summary to the draft or writing "on behalf of". SarahSV ^(talk) 18:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The last edit from the previous article was October 13th. The first edit from the new version was 5 November. They are in perfect chronological order. This was one of the considerations I considered when deciding to hist/merge. And looking at WP:HISTMERGE, it doesn't make any differentiation for paid or not paid editing. Cutting and pasting would have denied credit to me for a couple of edits, to Drmies and John Broughton as well, which would technically be against our copyright policy. Since it is so easy to see the changes, I have to stick with using a histmerge as the tool of choice here. In case you didn't see, there was an entire discussion and review on the current version, where others had input and signed off on it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

How would a reader know that the last edit to the previous article was on 13 October? The last edit before CM created his draft was 17:55, 17 September 2017‎. Also, if you were editing the draft you should have asked an uninvolved admin to do the merge.

The point is that the history now has a mix of paid and unpaid edits, with no indication in the edit summary (for those who don't know who CorporateM is) that a paid draft was added. Copying text over with a clear edit summary linking to the draft, and signalling that it's a paid draft, makes things easier for other editors in future. See WP:PAIDATTRIBUTE. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:41, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing the guidance on WP:HISTMERGE that says anything about uninvolved. It is a technical issue, not a judgement issue. The reader doesn't have a "right" to know which edits are paid or not, we don't differentiate. Either the edits stand on their own merits, or they do not. If I felt the edits were not up to speed, I would have protested, which actually, I did, and material was added back. I'm not going to treat a declared paid editor like a pariah. It just isn't going to happen. If you want paid editors to come forward and disclose, you have to treat them with the same respect you do any other editor, and I will, as long as they are honest and disclose their conflict of interest. Frankly, that paragraph in our COI behavioral guideline is just silly and misguided. I added a null edit saying that his edits were paid editing, to satisfy this misguided guideline. This is the kind of crap that drives paid editors underground, where they can't be monitored. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:09, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

There's a lot of discussion about advanced permissions and paid editing at the moment. To merge you have to delete; it just isn't a good idea to do that when you're involved and moving a page for a paid editor. I strongly disagree that the reader has no right to know which edits are paid, and if we didn't differentiate, we wouldn't have these additional rules or the provision in the terms of use.

Dennis, I don't appreciate "What are you talking about?" and "Noting for the silly record." I've come here in good faith with a concern. People always say of our rules that they drive this or that group away; if that were the dominant concern, we'd have no rules. It really isn't a burden to add to an edit summary that it's a paid edit or that you're moving in a paid draft.

Anyway, the problem remains that it's hard to see where the last non-paid version was, unless you know what to look for, so I hope in future you'll copy paid edits over if asked to, rather than merging. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:27, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

You undelete everything you delete, so in the end, nothing is deleted if you do a complete histmerge, which is what I did. No edits were left out, the record shows this. Your concern on me doing it is not the same as my finding the rules on paid editing silly on Wikipedia. I worked SPI for a long time, have over 1200 blocks there, including the largest paid editing case where I did 300 blocks in one single case. I'm pretty up on the effects of paid editing. Our policy on paid editing has been just as effective in preventing undisclosed paid editing as the war on drugs has been on drug abuse. That isn't a reflection of my respect for you, I do respect you and I"m sorry if I came across too strong, it is just I really feel strongly that our policy on paid editing IS silly and leads to more sockpuppets and less disclosure. As for the merge, I still feel I was appropriate. I have no feelings of ownership, and participated in getting it to add more criticisms. All that is on the talk page of the existing article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology, Dennis. We'll have to agree to disagree about the other issues. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:33, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving

Happy Thanksgiving, Dennis. Hope all is well with you and your family. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:52, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Happy turkey day

Northamerica1000 is wishing you a happy Thanksgiving. If you don't celebrate Thanksgiving, don't forget that "Any time is turkey time" (see image). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:09, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey

Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Dennis pls I need you to assist me with my account

An account with the name Danjuma Caroline has tarnished my image as an actress with false info concerning me , I tried editing it but the editor behind the account won’t let me and he is demanding for money , also treathning me that if I try editing again he will tarnish my image further . Please kindly assist me in deleting the account with the name “Danjuma caroline “ . Also kindly assist me in putting the editor behind it “derek” in check as it is obvious this person is a fraudulent person and trying to destroy innocent people’s images . Thank you Caroline Hutchings (talk) 23:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Ivanvector, the above account is not a technical match to Geebee2703 but they are both editing from the same place on different ISPs and are clearly linked. I see that you are addressing this from that account's requests. Sock or meat seems apparent.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

@Berean Hunter: thanks for checking, I wasn't really suspecting that they were related except for obviously working together.

@Caroline Hutchings: the editor Geebee2703 left a note on my talk page a little while ago about your page, and I gave them a suggestion for what you can do next to help resolve the issue.

@Dennis: Happy Friday! Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 01:09, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• Looks like Berean Hunter has this under control, so I will bow out. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:24, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Help desk

FYI, the guy who was complaining about your block of the "journalist" here has moved on to the WP:HD, in case you want to comment. You weren't pinged so I thought you should know. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:02, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• Appreciate the heads up. I have confidence that others can handle the situation and don't need my input to objectively review the situation. If I'm needed, feel free to ping. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • And over at WO someone mentioned the remarkable similarity of this person to User:MMAR, who shares with him the dubious honor of having been banned from both sites. Your call if you want to run an SPI, but, if it might be of any help, I seem to remember MMAR actually admitting to be a narcissist, which might help explain a lot. John Carter (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
    • There are proxies involved, and that is all I can say about that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't have a user

I have been collaborating with WP for the last 8+ years. I have never found the need to have a user. I actually think WP will gain a lot from pure anonymity and unbiased review of editions and, in particular, with the removal of "clusters of users". Or go to the other extreme and require a real ID and academic background to edit. Those are my ideas, but I don't expect others to share them, not even understand them, but I expect at least respect:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Jytdog_Ban_breaking/request_of_Enforcement_and_further_actions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.193.226.178 (talk) 12:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• WP:IP addresses are not people. I've already said it, if we can't consider the behavior of the filer, we aren't likely to consider anyone's behavior. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:50, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

A user banned to edit agricultural chemicals is editing an article about an agricultural chemical... why the information about who reported it has any influence on the decision? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.193.226.178 (talk) 13:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

First of all, WP:AE is the right venue, which doesn't allow IPs, so going to ANI is bypassing that. Even if you didn't have an account, a premise I'm not sold on, policy requires a registered editor file it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:18, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Saturnalia!

		Happy Saturnalia
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free and you not often get distracted by dice-playing. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:52, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Ed Rosenthal

Hello, Dennis. I see that you've restored a category that I had deleted at the above-named article. Perhaps you were not aware of the fact, but my removal was part of a reversion of mass unsourced categorizations made earlier today and which has become a topic of discussion at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Editor adding Category:New Left to multiple articles, not all of which seem appropriate. I don't dispute that Rosenthal might be properly categorized under Yippies -- my removal was based solely on the fact that this characteristic wasn't sourced (or even mentioned) in the article. But I also see that you have a source for the connection. So, why not add a sourced statement to the article, thus resolving the issue that led to the removal? NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:35, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• I did in the summary, which should be sufficient as it isn't mentioned in the article and I'm not really all for forcing the phrase in simply because of the category. The summary is sufficient. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:43, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

No fancy template...

Dennis, but just but to wish you happy holidays and all the best for 2018. It's probably a lot warmer where I am than where you are 😎 Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:36, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello Dennis Brown: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

	Wishing you and yours a Merry Christmas and a happy, healthy and prosperous New Year 2018!
	Thank you for all the hard work and effort you put into Wikipedia. God bless! Onel5969 TT me 03:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas Dennis Brown!!


Hi Dennis Brown, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,
Thanks for all your help and contributions on the 'pedia! ,
   –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 13:27, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Dennis Brown!

Happy New Year!

Dennis Brown,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
-- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:31, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Spokenology

Hello Dennis,

Can you pleased look at Spokenology. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.108.240.143 (talk) 07:59, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

As (not) in Spokenology? A curious concept I would look at — if there was anything to look at. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Not even a deleted article to look at. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Protection review

Dennis, would you take a look at the history of Sheringham Little Theatre. It's one of those local-interest articles that continue to attract mostly-unsourced additions that sound promotional. Most of it has been written by IP editors clearly interested more in the theater than in Wikipedia and the rest mostly, I think, by newcomers. I came across it due to a Third Opinion request, which wasn't proper for lack of discussion, but that's just the thing: the IP editors won't discuss. As I said on the talk page, I almost nominated it for deletion, but a Google News search revealed enough coverage that it probably could survive in a much reduced state (which the IP editors are going to hate). It needs a ton of work but, frankly, having my own fish to fry I'm not much interested in doing it and the registered editors who are interested need more experience before doing so. I've reverted the same edit a couple of times trying to reintroduce a considerable addition of unsourced material and removal of cn tags (along with a bit of apparently acceptably sourced material). If I was making up the rules it would be a prime candidate for indefinite or long-term semi-protection or (perhaps better) pending changes protection until someone can come along and rework the article (as an article being abused by editors, especially IP editors who don't have reliable user talk pages, who will not discuss), but I'm never certain what the criteria for those protections are. Reading the protection policy, it would seem that they're mainly for vandalism and I suppose the restoration of unsourced material could be regarded as such as it is in violation of BURDEN, but it really doesn't seem to meet the definition of vandalism. Am I being over-strict on the criteria for protection and shouldn't have bothered you but just gone directly to RPP, or am I being appropriately cautious? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:07, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) The Little Theatre certainly isn't a deletion candidate; aside from the two big theatres in Norwich itself, it's by far the most important theatre in Norfolk. Articles on Norfolk topics are always a pain to source, since for historical reasons the big national newspapers have far less penetration in the area than they do in most of the country, and consequently the local papers (particularly the Eastern Daily Press) are the papers-of-record for the area, but the online archives for the local papers are very patchy. Wikipedia has the same problem with articles on other places in both the US and UK where the local press has successfully fended off the big national papers and consequently the nationals don't feel it worth their while to cover the areas in much detail—Wales and Texas are two obvious examples that spring to mind. For anything in Norfolk, City Bookshop is generally the first and last point of call, since pretty much anything published on the region will be stocked in their enormous local history section. ‑ Iridescent 18:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

That was pretty much my conclusion as well, but what is in the article needs to be sourced. Personally, I don't have much problem with regional sources (perhaps because I'm a Texan) so long as they're professional enough to be be expected to have the requisite elements of reliability. But we need to deal with the partisan POV edits. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

• Give me a few days, I'm still swamped at work at home, but I will be happy to take a look. Might be a candidate for pending changes if someone is feeling froggy. And my offer to nominate for adminship is still on the table, TransporterMan. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

• Ok, I have some time this morning. Any church, theatre or community topic like this that has lasted over 100 years is pretty much guaranteed to be notable, it is just a matter of finding sources, something I will do this morning. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:30, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • It's a little better now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:09, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the efforts there! I've been trying to fend off the IP's attempts at POV pushing and advertising for a few months now to little avail as they keep coming back to revert to their preferred version, then leave and come back as a different IP address somewhere down the road. only (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
      • I've edited too much on it, but if they keep coming back, you might ask another admin about putting it under Pending Changes, which would solve the issue and still let them edit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:52, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
        • Thank you, Dennis. Only, if the disruption continues I'll try to spot it but if I don't then leave a note on my user talk page and I'll help you find another admin since Dennis is now involved. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:33, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Lolly Wolly Doodle

Could you elaborate on what, specifically, motivated you to place this tag? Daniel Case (talk) 15:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• The article is overly detailed, containing information that goes well beyond the summary style of the usual encyclopedia article. When I checked the history, I was surprised you had written the bulk of it. Actually, it linked off some Lexington, NC articles or I wouldn't have even noticed. But yes, it has a promotional tone and uses primary sources entirely too much. I'm not saying it is spam or horrible, but it is in need of paring down to make it consistent with other, similar company articles. I tagged it for editing later, as it is somewhat linked to Lexington, NC and I tend to work on those, as few others do. Having others eyes is always good. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:51, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

It's always easier to write more than you really need and then cut it down later, than to do the reverse. I'm not arguing with any of your edits save removing that bit from the intro about LWD seen as having succeeded in selling on Facebook where other retailers had not ... it's in the body of the article, and sourced independently. Perhaps we can restore it to the intro with a proper source there?

I hadn't known about the sale ... thanks for making that update. Daniel Case (talk) 17:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• I've done the same, but it does need trimming in the body, a good deal in fact. I'm not opposed to adding the lede part back if it is sourced in the body, that is a noteworthy claim, although likely hard to source. I have a bunch more trimming planned, I'm just really busy. I'm also planning on finding out more about the recent purchase and if there is something sourced, expand that into a paragraph. Buyouts like that usually mean change, although it's only been a few months. I didn't expect to do all the trimming/adding alone, since you have time invested. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Dennis, thanks for what you've done so far. IMO the article still remains highly inappropriate for a WP corporation article. For one thing, is it really OK to use all of those ref/links to the catalog pages? Gandydancer (talk) 23:02, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree, that is part of the trimming I had in mind. I went and looked at Bojangles' Famous Chicken 'n Biscuits, another North Carolina business that is arguably much more significant and yet the article is much shorter and the sourcing is cleaner. It is a little thin, but in the right direction. Again, I'm swamped and it sounds like we are on the same page, so please help where you can. We are all experienced and can hash out any disagreements on the talk page of the article without hassle. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Getting side tracked.... Dennis Brown - 2¢
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Again, I appreciate your edits. Dennis, I have not made any edits because I was so um..., so horrified when I read that article that I felt unable to edit it without an emotional reaction that may have colored my editing. Actually I felt that I'd like to just delete almost the whole (goddamn) thing when I saw the catalog pages and felt, "oh my, I could almost do my Christmas gift shopping right here!". . I do wonder what will become of this wonderful idea of shared knowledge. Will money...will money do what money always does? (Note, I'm not suggesting that this article was written and maintained for a payment - these are just my feelings in general.) Gandydancer (talk) 21:20, 6 January 2018 (UTC) @Gandydancer: Well, I appreciate that you felt comfortable enough to cast aspersions here on the writing of the article — and, by extension, on the editor who did the hard work of originally researching and writing it — with the assurance and peace of mind that the editor in question would never come over here to read what you wrote. If I weren't so much in agreement with Dennis's critique and the edits he's made, and if I were a lesser editor and a lesser person, I might fidget around in your contrib history and find something you wrote that emotionally horrified me enough that I couldn't bring myself to edit it. I'm sure it would be there if I really wanted to look. But I have more important things to do. Daniel Case (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2018 (UTC) I'm really sorry Daniel. I think that I was being unfair to you to say these things here. Perhaps Dennis will delete this section of his page. Gandydancer (talk) 00:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not done yet, doing it one section at a time. Tomorrow is "Family Sunday" so about a dozen kids and grandkids will be here, and they get my undivided attention. It isn't a race anyway, I'm trying to be thoughtful in my editing, research as I go along, then when I'm done, I will go back and clean up any prose, modify some prose for consistency, etc. No biggie. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Timeline of OpenBSD-stable Firefox ESR port

Hello.

How do you do? We haven't seen each other around for a very long time. Oh, and a belated happy new year.

I am hoping you are a totally uninvolved party in regards to the Timeline of OpenBSD-stable Firefox ESR port page in the article space.

The problem with this page is that it is not an article. The page contains a chart, and I don't know what it is. Knowing the author, I believe he is working on something and he intends to develop it into something. But I believe this belongs to his user space, where he can work on it in peace. It was recently tagged for speedy deletion and I can cite fundamental policies that why it does not belong to the article namespace. (Well, there are a lot of problem tags on it, so, not exactly a secret.)

Another problem is that I think it is not prudent if I myself do anything about it, including sending him a message, putting a custom SD tag on the article or sending it to AfD. That's because I, as well as the late FleetCommand (RIP; my the God have mercy on his soul) have had a very heated discussion with him (which surprisingly, neither turned into edit warring nor got itself connected to ANI). I don't want him to hate me so much as to want to rip off his own hand just to have something to throw at me.

So, there anything you can do?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 07:28, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• Lankiveil declined speedy delete as a "test edit", which makes sense since it wasn't a test, but I disagree with just removing the tag. Personally, I would have deleted it as having insufficient context for an article (then offered to userfy), but that was within his discretion. People often use the wrong criteria when tagging an article, but if it meets any other speedy criteria, I will delete under the proper criteria. Not all admin do that, or he may simply feel it doesn't fall under criteria, I don't know. I've left a note on the user talk page offering to put it in user space. Otherwise, it will either be CSD A1 or A3, or AFD which it certainly wouldn't survive. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:47, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• • Thanks. —Codename Lisa (talk) 08:00, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit-warring on Judicial Watch

Given your previous oversight of the ban on Snooganssnoogans (talk), I was hoping you might be able to arbitrate what's becoming an edit war on the [Judicial Watch] page. I reverted a mass edit by Snooganssnoogans (talk), who then reverted it back and threatened me with an edit war warning on my talk page. I'm not a terribly experienced editor, and I'm trying to do this the correct way, but I want to ensure that the disruptive edits (borderline vandalism) don't remain up until consensus is achieved or someone arbitrates the matter. Thanks for your help. VirgilGilmour (talk) 17:32, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

The user above has reverted me four times to keep unique and reliably sourced text out of the article. The user has offered a cavalcade of nonsensical reasons to revert me (some of them bold-faced lies), see the talk page[5]. The user now argues that I have ben banned from making any edits on Wikipedia. So, yes, please clarify to this user that I have not been banned from editing. My sanction is described here[6]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

And I'd like to know how this red linked account, with a total of 65 edits, somehow knows about Snoogans^2 (irrelevant) sanction? It's not on Snoogans talk page. One would have to be quite familiar with some Wikipedia history here to know about it. I'm hearing a lot of quacking here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree with both Snoog and VM. VirgilGilmour, who has only 52 edits to his name, comes back after an 8-month hiatus with an edit warring spree and uses some blatantly dishonest edit summaries while speaking fluent Wikipedian. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

• As you probably have guessed, I've commented already in a couple of places. I'm not ready to make claims on this new editor, but my ear is to the ground. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	I appreciate your contributions regarding my topic ban as well as your thoughts on Arbitration Enforcement. --MONGO 13:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Unblock request

Hi Dennis Brown, would you take a minute to unblock this account Feyiwiki. They were blocked due to IP address by KrakatoaKatie and are currently at an edit-a-ton. Regards, Mahveotm (talk) 13:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• Mahveotm, I can't. I have no idea what IP range that user is on and the user account itself is not blocked. I do not have access to the IP address information, only a CU can do that. You have to contact a CheckUser: Wikipedia:CheckUser#Contacting_a_CheckUser. It is best to try to contact Katie as well, since she made the block. Even if someone else unblocks it, it is helpful for her to know this happened. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

HELP

50.254.21.213 (talk) 05:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Balfour_Morrison — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.254.21.213 (talk) 07:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Externial_Llink's

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:The_Bushranger#external_links

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Barek#external_links

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:XLinkBot#Sybil_Shearer,_The_Morrison-Shearer_Foundation

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:50.254.21.213#Help_me!

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SlimVirgin#external_links

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NZ_Footballs_Conscience#Sybil_Shearer

50.254.21.213 (talk) 06:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what you are asking for. The Bushranger summed up the situation quite well on his talk page. Not every external link is appropriate, policy is pretty clear. You seem to have a conflict of interest in regards to that one article, which I'm guessing is clouding your good judgement. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
• he said it is a content disputes and both of them said that face book was except-able she uses social media on here bi'o pages and twitter and so do other editors,with live people 2.so know it has been locked down from IP. how is that fair that is a way to be the excursive editor.
• how can it be a conflict of interest if you know somebody who volunteers at the foundation and never discussed about the edits or received info from the foundation knowing the person was finding the page and seeing the help template i helped just look at all the cites,
• the bot took out facebook, the bot user took out links the pages were written by a guy's who were accused of copyright infringement and the page went into ? lock down why is it wrong to help if the policy of wikipedia is be-bold, with a page that just sat there since april.
• people need to stop hating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.254.21.213 (talk) 13:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

You ask a lot of questions, many of which were already answered. "Be bold" is not the only policy here. Even WP:BRD lists it solely as the first step, not the final one, and that is the gold standard for editing conduct at Wikipedia. You were bold, it was reverted. People aren't hating, you are just having a tantrum because you can't get your way. Not everyone agrees with you. This is called "being in the minority". We all are at some time. We deal with it. As for The Bushranger (I'm not even going to bother pinging him), he didn't say he agreed with you. You are reading too much into his quoting of policy. Facebook links are *sometimes* acceptable. Not always.

And as for having a conflict of interest, a conflict of interest can exist whether you are acting under their direction or not. you are so hyped up and posting this in so many places, it is VERY OBVIOUS that you have a conflict of interest. A disinterested editor would ask about it, then move on once it was explained. You seem to have taken this upon yourself as a mission, and that is a problem. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

User talk:50.254.21.213

So, they actually asked you to remove their talk page access. They just aren't getting it. *sigh* --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Inspector General ‖ 19:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Was just coming here to say the same thing. I think they just aren't getting it and should lose talk page privileges as well. I wouldn't be surprised if once block expires, they continue being disruptive. NZFC^(talk) 21:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

These things happen. I think there is either a serious CIR issue going on, or they are an already banned editor trolling. Regardless, I didn't feel I had any choice but to stop the drama and send them to UTRS instead. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Need some attention

Hi. Not 100% sure if you're keeping an eye on the discussions on Talk:Battle of France. Need some input if you have the time. Thanks. KevinNinja (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail

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.

Jehochman2 (talk) 15:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

BoF RfC

Hi. Not sure if this affects the RfC you just opened, but the template guideline was actually amended last October to remove the "decisive" option. This is why it has kicked off again now. The change was discussed, albeit with limited participation, so technically it has consensus, but "hasn't been changed in years" is technically incorrect. Factotem (talk) 12:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• Fixed. I was looking at the page history, not the module history. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

RfC Request

I would like to make a request that votes should only count for users who have made at least 1 contribution to BOF. Otherwise I am afraid that "friends" could be invited to vote... skewing the result in favor of people who have never touched this article before. I believe that, so far, 2 users have voted who have made 0 edits to the page. This is an issue that has been going on for years, and I believe that it is definitely warranted to only have people who have actually clicked "edit" once the right to vote. KevinNinja (talk) 22:29, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail!

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.

Kurtis ^(talk) 09:41, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I've sent another. Kurtis ^(talk) 20:52, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

A beer for you!

ALSO I HAVEN'T POURED YOU A BEER IN A DOGS AGE!!!!! Drmies (talk) 16:16, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I actually had a couple of Coronas the other day while dining at a nice Mexican restaurant up in High Point, NC. Two gave me a little buzz, that's how long it's been since I've had one. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Hey

Check this out--the subject is a Nobel prize winner... I just emailed him an apology, six years after the fact. Drmies (talk) 16:16, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Facepalm Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Lil Xan notability

I don't think this edit is warranted. Leanos has been profiled in XXL, Billboard, and The New Yorker, and has received mentions in The New York Times and a few other Billboard articles, among other sources. Is this not enough to establish his notability in your eyes? Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:13, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• He has yet to release an album, while music is what he is notable for. This makes it worthy of review. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

If multiple reliable sources consider Leanos notable enough to cover even though he hasn't released an album, his article warrants inclusion. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article" (see WP:GNG). Do you not consider the sources in the article significant coverage? Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I see you toned it down a notch while I was typing, which I appreciate. With most of those sources, he is simply listed with a bunch of other people and there is one or two paragraphs about him. He is new, so this isn't unusual, but that isn't the same as WP:SIGCOV, another requirement when it comes to establishing notability. I'm not dragging it to WP:AFD, I'm saying some more substantial sourcing would be helpful. Establishing notability isn't about the quantity of sources, it is about the quality. For example, the New York Times article is a high quality source, but there is only a single paragraph mentioning him. That isn't significant coverage for the purpose of establishing notability, although it is fine for sourcing facts given in that one paragraph. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:37, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you regarding the NYT source. That's why I said he "received mention" in it, not that he was profiled in it. In the XXL and New Yorker sources, however, Leanos is a main focus of the article. (The title of the New Yorker article is "Lil Xan and the Year in Sad Rap".) This meets the "addresses the topic directly and in detail" standard of WP:SIGCOV in my eyes, but I can see where you're coming from as well. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:46, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I will look later, although I have checked several sources today (I'm at work, busy one minute, free the next). Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

No problem. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

(←) I don't mean to hound you about this, but I really don't think this edit is warranted either. Having a table of singles is a useful resource for readers who want to see the scope and chronology of Leanos' output. This usefulness is independent of whether he has released an album or not. Do you have any objection to me restoring the material? Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:39, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• The problem is that you should talk about it in prose, not tables. You can't really justify a table when there isn't any album, there isn't a moderate list of hits. You only use tables when the number of entries are long enough that it is awkward to do in prose. That is pretty much a WP:MOS issue. If you want to put back some of the info as prose, I don't mind, but when talking about a future album, there isn't much to list. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:48, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I disagree, but this issue is minor enough that I don't think it's worth getting into a protracted debate about. At any rate, thanks for engaging in discussion with me. I appreciate the promptness of your responses. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:12, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Lord Bolingbroke, I probably should have linked the guideline on it, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Tables, which I think explains it better than I can, and why prose is preferred to tables in cases like this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:53, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

You said earlier, "You only use tables when the number of entries are long enough that it is awkward to do in prose." The singles table you removed listed thirteen songs. Don't you think it would be awkward to list all of these songs in prose? Also, could you be more specific about what part of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Tables you are thinking of? The paragraph on prose in the suitability subsection says, "Prose is preferred in articles as prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, in a way that a table may not." Do you really think this is an issue with the specific table you removed though? Does presenting a list of singles as a table rather than in prose really run the risk of stripping away necessary nuance or detail? Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:13, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

It listed 13 songs that didn't chart with sourcing for the one that did. This is why you just list them in prose (with sources). The default is to use prose, and only to use tables when necessary. Using it to list a bunch of songs that didn't go anywhere is overkill. Listing them all isn't really needed (imo). Being an encyclopedia article, the idea is the summarize, not to exhaustively list everything. The singles that charted, of course we would list, as they add to the understanding of the artist. In an article on a specific album, you list every song because it is central to that album. Listing every song released in the main article is uncommon, and since "released" is a nebulous thing (Did RCA release to radio? Self-publish? iTunes?), should be accompanied with sources for each to be included. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:37, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

So your problem isn't with the table per se, but rather with the indiscriminate inclusion of songs? Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:49, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not anti-table, but in that article, that table doesn't really belong. Prose is the better way to list them, and only if you can source them. Once he publishes an album, then there would be a table in THAT article with the songs, because the list of songs are best organized when talking about a collection of songs (an album). If he had more than three charting singles that weren't on albums, then a table would make sense for this article. Album articles usually have tables. Artists articles sometimes do, but usually to list accomplishments, like hit songs, or awards. Often, those are still done in prose because prose is always the preferred medium, unless a table makes organization smarter in some way. But I wouldn't use a table just for stuff they've released that didn't really go anywhere. I would just add a paragraph "He has released several singles including xxx, yyy, zzz and aaa" with a reference. They weren't hits, they will never have their own articles, a table is overkill since it doesn't really *require* organization. I know a lot of people think tables "look pretty", but that't not really the criteria for using them. We are supposed to use tables only to organize data, not to make it look prettier. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:48, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and I know there are PLENTY of articles that use tables wrong, and I correct them when I see them. It is an honest mistake, but being an encyclopedia, we strive for consistency. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

The salient part of your argument, it seems to me, is that non-album singles should only be mentioned in articles if they are accompanied by a source (regardless of whether the songs are put in a table or described in prose). I agree with you on that point, because I think limiting articles to only sourced information is necessary to keep them from becoming repositories of superfluous trivia. The only song from the table you removed that has charted on the Billboard Hot 100 (as far as I'm aware) or received more than a tangential mention in sources is "Betrayed", and that song is already mentioned in the main body of the article. In light of this, I think you were justified in removing the table. Thanks for taking the time to explain the rationale behind your decision . Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:20, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Not a problem. I appreciate your patience and civility. The Manual of Style isn't always easy to understand, but it is a pretty good set of guidelines that make the articles look professional. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:55, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Battle of France

If you haven't looked in for a while I suggest you do,

• RM "decisive" This isn't about the decisiveness of the campaign; as that can, and should, be exemplified at the body of the article with the appropriated sources. The infobox needs to be kept short and objective exactly to avoid this kind of stuff. RedUser (talk) 10:17 pm, Today (UTC+0)

• And who exactly are you? Another person voting that has made 0 contributions. Not good... KevinNinja (talk) 10:22 pm, Today (UTC+0)

and invite Kevin Ninja to let people volunteer their opinions freely.Keith-264 (talk) 22:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• I've warned him and let him know the entire reason for an RFC is to *intentionally* attract people who have not edited that article, ie: outside opinions. I would have thought that was obvious, but I supposed not. Regardless, his comments were removed in the polling section. I fully expect to get another admin to close, btw, since I started and policing the RFC. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Keith-264 (talk) 00:11, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: Director appears to have suppressed your Monday warning and added petrol to the fire. Perhaps another look? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:53, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: Hello? Keith-264 (talk) 17:33, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Your alt account(s)

Hi Dennis, was doing some routine mopping and ran across User:Farmer Brown, looks like it has been inactive for a while and would normally get some flags removed (abusefilter, accountcreator, templateeditor, patroller). The account log looks like these have never been used. Can you check if you still need these flags (especially abusefilter) and update any no longer needed at Special:UserRights/Farmer_Brown? As you have an another active account, this is not required. Another way to avoid being on some lists is to log on and make an edit with that account every now and then. Thanks for your time! — xaosflux ^Talk 01:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Exact same thing with User:Pharmboy, also appears to never be needed some of the advanced permissions, especially abusefilter. Thank you for your time, — xaosflux ^Talk 02:04, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I was expecting to be traveling more than than I have been, but the last year I've only been editing on secure connections. Because of that, the IPblock needs to stay, but the abuse filter was never a big thing for those accounts, nor acct creator. Didn't realize it was an issue for alt accounts. I trimmed a couple off them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:09, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Dennis, again no "policy" reason - just routine cleanups - happy editing! — xaosflux ^Talk 16:35, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Going overboard in talkpage policing

We're all adults there, this isn't preschool. "One user's quest to glorify his own country as 'undefeated'" is not a personal attack. Indeed even if it were, you should not hide the whole post on those grounds. In previous discussions Keith made it abundantly clear "teh BoB" was his primary motivating objection, and I can post diffs to that effect.

From this point on, please refrain from boxing up my posts. If you feel I've posted a personal attack, go ahead and throw the book at me.. and I'll appeal if I think it's unfair. -- Director (talk) 18:32, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• How about instead you not disrupt a talk page to make a point? I've been fairly lenient and just giving small reminders, but if you didn't act like a child on that page, I wouldn't have to nanny it. You profess we are all adults, then please act like one and quit trying to antagonize others. I would rather not have to block you, and it should be obvious that I'm bending over backwards to not do so. Don't confuse that with an unwillingness. I've rehatted as that material doesn't add to the discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

MOS

Could you be a bit more specific about what specifically in WP:MOS affects the infobox dispute on BoF? KevinNinja (talk) 16:31, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• The Manual of Style should have some guidelines on using infoboxes, what should or shouldn't be in them, and such. Again, I'm not an infobox guy, it just seems that the best place to look for a solid argument is in the actual guideline that covers this very RFC. I haven't looked, and frankly, I don't WANT to form an opinion right now. I'm quite curious how this will come out, as I truly don't know what the "right" answer is. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes is a guideline, which isn't a policy, but it isn't an essay either. I haven't read it, but it *might* have some guidance. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:46, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

The thing is, this topic was never really about WP:MOS. All the arguments made by the side opposing point to BoF as having a negative long-term impact on German war strategy. In fact, this discussion is much more about the scope of the result parameter rather than the influence of the MOS. My argument is that the scope of the result parameter should be limited to the battle, not extended to include the long-term impacts of the battle (which is essentially the opposing argument). Any attempt to close the RFC based on MOS and not on the actual arguments presented would be rather lazy in my opinion. KevinNinja (talk) 18:55, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not saying MOS rules it, I'm saying it is the guideline and it may offer some supporting information. Any opinion that is backed by a guidelines is a stronger argument. Or it might not apply at all, but the decision by the closing admin will be based on more than opinion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:49, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

FYI on new ArbCom procedures

Just wanted you make sure you're aware that ArbCom recently enacted a change to DS procedures requiring admins to post an editnotice when imposing page-level restrictions. (The procedure forbids enforcement of page-level sanctions that don't have an editnotice.) This doesn't seem to affect the recent block of TripWire, because WP:ARBPIA has its own directly-authorized 1RR that isn't subject to those new procedures, but I thought I should let you know so that any future sanctions aren't invalidated. Thanks! Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 04:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• I saw that Arb had done that, although I'm thinking that is going to cause a lot of confusion and reversed sanctions on technicalities in the future. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Your revert of my edit on Spacetime

Regarding this edit: [1] Just don't. I really don't care what your personal opinion is, but this isn't the place to air it. Editing just to change the gender of pronouns will get your blocked around here. There are plenty who simply have no tolerance for this kind of edit, and frankly, it didn't help the understanding of the topic, so I fail to see the point, other than to be rude. Don't do that, please. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:27, 12 February 2018 (UTC) How about keeping your personal opinion and refraining from telling me what to do. I didn't air anything, I just can't stand wikipedia, ostensibly a place of science and logic, being misused to air political agendas like genderism - by disfiguring language no less. If you take into account that most scientists are male anyway, it's misleading and distracting at best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lalalands (talk • contribs)

• Then let me put it in plain English so there is no misunderstanding: make another edit with that kind of rationale, and I will block you from editing for an indefinite period of time. This isn't 1940, adapt or move on to another hobby, Lalalands. What we don't need around here is more misogamy. It shouldn't matter if it says he or she, but the problem is WHY you changed it and your attitude while changing it. My mistake was trying to be nice about it, something which is easily rectified. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
• Just for grins and giggles, I wonder how Drmies feels about the edit in question. I haven't bugged him in a 'coon's age. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
• Ha. Well, Lalalands clearly is the one with the agenda. It's like those idiots that claim they don't see color in a clearly racialized world; the moment you point out they have no black friends and the only people they make excuses for are whites, they call you the racist. So here is our situation: someone at some point decided, I suppose, that there was no reason to have male pronouns, and so for the sake of variety they switched it up in this one No, "she" (the observer, who could be male or female, or anything in between, and it doesn't matter) was introduced here, almost a year ago, by User:Stigmatella aurantiaca, who looks like the kind of writer Wikipedia needs more of.

  What Lalalands is doing here, gender-warring around as if someone stepped on their tender penis, is not clear to me. "Disfiguring language" is just the most ridiculous statement one can make here; I hope they're really, really old, because if they are young then we're not teaching the chillens well. Also, Lalalands, I mean no insult with my singular they, though perhaps that also is hurtful to you in that special place. Hey! Dennis! Good to see you again. Watching the Olympics? Figure skating dude! Drmies (talk) 02:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not a sports guy, and besides, figure skating is for girls and sissy's, right? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Prostitution in Oceania

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Prostitution in Oceania. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Paektu Mountain

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Paektu Mountain. Legobot (talk) 04:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Princess Eugenie of York

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Princess Eugenie of York. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

February 2018

Please do not, ever, box my comments up. Thanks. -- Director (talk) 11:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• I will only do those things that are expected of an admin, which is to redact or hat comments that are offtopic, an attack or otherwise problematic in a discussion. Under WP:ADMINACCT, you are welcome to take any action I do to WP:AN for review. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Your definition of "off-topic" is often demonstrably out-of-line and risible.
My being welcome at AN is the whole reason I'm posting this thread... -- Director (talk) 08:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

But even at your appeal of your block, an admin who I'm not familiar with agreed with the conclusion. When you are commenting on the other editors and not the merits of the edits, that is offtopic, and in an RFC, I will hat, and if I have to more than once or twice, I will block. I make no apology for doing something the community has asked me to do. I suggest you simply stop casting aspersions and making snide comments about others, and just keep your discussions on topic, then you have nothing to worry about. If you don't in the future, then you can expect someone will block you again. It is that simple. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Black genocide

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Black genocide. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to lift Legacypac TBAN

Since you closed the discussion, just letting you know I've proposed to lift Legacypac's TBAN at this thread. IMO, it is causing more harm than good at this point. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:45, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Noah Oppenheim

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Noah Oppenheim. Legobot (talk) 04:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

CraigCarlton

Doesn't seem to want to drop the stick. See [7] [8] Meters (talk) 08:32, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• Those were before my final warning. If he does it again, I will just indef block him, but since I've warned him, I have to give him the opportunity to comply with community standards. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:33, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry. Saw the talk page edits first and didn't notice the time difference to your second warning. Meters (talk) 20:12, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Could you please explain more fully...

You created a redirect, at Scot Peterson, to Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. Your edit summary was a laconic BLP1E.

I had already offered, on Talk:Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, reasons why Peterson was not a BLP1E. Is your edit summary in response to my talk page comment?

Another option would have been for you to have mentioned Peterson, by name, in the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting article, possibly creating a red-link. That would have been enough to justify adding an entry to Scott Peterson (disambiguation). Geo Swan (talk) 23:54, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• My redirect had nothing to do with anyone's conversation. I didn't see it. I was simply reading the news, went to look what we had on him at Wikipedia (expecting to everyone arguing at AFD, to be honest), saw nothing, decided that others would be looking for the same name, so I made the redirect. so they would at least get directed to the article. I decided against adding any material because there is already enough traffic and they are still sorting out what he did and didn't do, and I'm the kind of editor that thinks you should wait until the sources settle down before adding the material (ie: we aren't a newspaper). So no, it had nothing to do with you or anyone else, it was simply a logical redirect that I was a bit shocked as it didn't exist. At this point, BLP1E would seem to apply as that is all he is known for, which is why a redirect is the right answer, instead of trying to create an article. Of course, that may change tomorrow, I can only talk about today. And yes, once some content is in the article (and plenty of people are probably chomping at the bit to add some) then I would agree that it should be added on that dab page, even though it is spelled differently. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:35, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Undo

Hello. Could you elaborate on your edit? 150.254.144.52 (talk) 02:52, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

• I've replied on the article talk page, where these type of discussions belong. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:48, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Appeasement

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Appeasement. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Margot Robbie

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Margot Robbie. Legobot (talk) 04:34, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello Dennis

How are you?

I was involved in the biggest SPI, in terms of the amount of evidence (AFAIK). Upon checking it's archives I found comments posted by you as SPI clerk.[9]

I would like to know why you stopped volunteering as an SPI clerk. Lorstaking (talk) 14:41, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

• The last case I clerked at, I blocked 300 socks. I'm pretty sure that record still stands. WilliamH was the CU I worked with. The whole experience was very frustrating, enough so that WilliamH (a Crat, CU and obviously Admin) turned in his bits and left. I left clerking. It is a very frustrating job, most clerks don't stay there for years anyway, so I'm not that different than others. Some of the reasons I left I can't talk about, as it is complicated and involves private information, but the short version is that it ceased being fun, and I no longer felt like I could make a difference. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:40, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Kingdom of France

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kingdom of France. Legobot (talk) 04:34, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mikhail Bulgakov

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mikhail Bulgakov. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon. Legobot (talk) 04:35, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Star Wars: The Last Jedi

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Star Wars: The Last Jedi. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

B2C restriction

I'm asking here as it seems unnecessarily annoying to discuss on B2C's own talkpage—given that each post will generate a "you have new messages" notification—but I think For an indefinite period of time, you are topic banned from discussing the moving or renaming of any page, while on any page of the English Wikipedia website needs rewording. As worded, that allows B2C to still perform moves but not to discuss them; that leads to obvious potential issues, in which B2C considers a move an uncontroversial fix and performs it, someone else challenges it on the grounds that an apparently-incorrect spelling/capitalization/punctuation is the WP:COMMONNAME, but B2C is unable to explain their reasoning. (This kind of "apparent uncontroversial fix but actually something that needs discussion" isn't a particularly unusual situation; see Talk:Manchester Small-Scale Experimental Machine#Undiscussed rename for an example—not involving B2C—only a few minutes ago.) It either needs to be a total you are topic banned from moving or renaming and from discussing the moving or renaming of any page, or you are topic banned from discussing the moving or renaming of any page other than discussion in a single location of moves conducted by yourself. I'm inclined to go with the former; the latter has the potential to perversely increase disruption, since it incentivizes B2C to unilaterally rename pages to allow participation in the discussion. ‑ Iridescent 09:37, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• Ah, you are correct, sir. I added an update. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:24, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Question

Hi, first off, if my posting a question here is in any way inappropriate, please accept my apologies and revert, delete, strike and/or hat/collapse this post and I will post here no further on this issue. But, that said, this is the reason for this post; I know absolutely nothing about Arbcom or WP:AE. I've never been a party, or even a commenter on any pages in those areas. Maybe if there was a 'Help:Arbcom' or 'H:AE page'... but anyway. Let's get this out of the way first;

• Is it ok for me to ask you for information? (strictly procedural, not guidance on what to do or not do, or for any action or advice on my behalf) Is that ok?
• If so, I basically would like to know if I can post any questions or responses there.
• Again if so, where would I post? (and where can't I?)
• Can I post additional information about the issues being discussed?
• Is there anyone that I can not post questions or direct comments to? (eg: the filer, a commenting party or a commenting admin)

I thank you in advance if you are able to provide any information, and apologize if I shouldn't have posted here in the first place. Thanks. - ^theWOLFchild 04:20, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• Anything pertaining to the report should be added at the WP:AE report itself. AE is a semi-formal board, so there are restrictions on comment size, where you can add text (your area only), so it's best to be very concise, don't get emotional, stick to the facts, and ignore personalities or comments on them. Most of the time, saying too little is better than saying too much. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:46, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Well I had wanted to ask about the notice regarding "uninvolved admins only", but maybe I'll just leave it be for now. I'll give the firearms talk pages a rest for now as well. Thanks for the reply. Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 15:35, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

That is just the format, evidence above, and comments from "uninvolved" admin below. Decisions are NOT consensus, which ever admin closes or acts, they do so as an individual. Keep in mind, we use the definition of "uninvolved" from WP:INVOLVED, not the common English definition. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:57, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2018).

Administrator changes

Lourdes†

AngelOfSadness • Bhadani • Chris 73 • Coren • Friday • Midom • Mike V

† Lourdes has requested that her admin rights be temporarily removed, pending her return from travel.

Guideline and policy news

• The autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) is scheduled to end on 14 March 2018. The results of the research collected can be read on Meta Wiki.
• Community ban discussions must now stay open for at least 24 hours prior to being closed.
• A change to the administrator inactivity policy has been proposed. Under the proposal, if an administrator has not used their admin tools for a period of five years and is subsequently desysopped for inactivity, the administrator would have to file a new RfA in order to regain the tools.
• A change to the banning policy has been proposed which would specify conditions under which a repeat sockmaster may be considered de facto banned, reducing the need to start a community ban discussion for these users.

Technical news

• CheckUsers are now able to view private data such as IP addresses from the edit filter log, e.g. when the filter prevents a user from creating an account. Previously, this information was unavailable to CheckUsers because access to it could not be logged.
• The edit filter has a new feature contains_all that edit filter managers may use to check if one or more strings are all contained in another given string.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2018 Steward elections, the following users are our new stewards: -revi, Green Giant, Rxy, There'sNoTime, علاء.

Obituaries

• Bhadani (Gangadhar Bhadani) passed away on 8 February 2018. Bhadani joined Wikipedia in March 2005 and became an administrator in September 2005. While he was active, Bhadani was regarded as one of the most prolific Wikipedians from India.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Portal talk:Current events/2018 March 6

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Portal talk:Current events/2018 March 6. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions for pseudoscience and fringe science

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date. Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here. Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Hi, Dennis. You're of course profoundly aware of the discretionary sanctions system, and I don't mean to poke or pester you with that bureaucratic-looking alert. I just thought you might possibly not be aware that Ark Encounter is in Category:Pseudoscience (via the daughter category Creation science), and is thus under ps discretionary sanctions. Bishonen | talk 11:22, 2 April 2018 (UTC).

• But there isn't sufficient sourcing to support it, that is the issue at hand. The fact that it is there is a point of contention, as it isn't supported by the sources. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:47, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

That's not the only issue, though, Dennis: it's not just about what you removed but what you restored. I was surprised to see you remove "fundamentalist" from the first sentence, making it read "Ark Encounter is a Christian evangelical theme park that opened in Grant County, Kentucky on July 7, 2016." Don't you find "fundamentalist", as piped to Christian fundamentalism, more descriptive and specific for the first sentence than "Christian evangelical" on its own, a term I don't think as many people (certainly not many people outside the US) understand? In the same edit, you also changed "The theme park promotes pseudoscientific theories about the age of the Earth", etc, to "The theme park promotes Christian beliefs about the age of the Earth". I was even more surprised by that. Removing "pseudoscientific" is one thing, but do you think AiG's opinion about the age of the earth (i. e. about 6,000 years) is best described as Christian in general? In your edit summary, you wrote "WP:UNDO, improper synthesis of sources as the overwhelming majority of sources do not call it pseudoscience." — I'm not sure why the mention of WP:UNDO — did you mean that you were just removing content you disapproved of, without being willing to take responsibility for the content you restored? I don't know, I'm asking. Did you consider improving the sentences you edited, or did you think "The theme park promotes Christian beliefs about the age of the Earth", and so on, was good enough? A post of yours on Legacypac's page suggests that your edit to the article was "for the sake of neutrality".[10] Do you believe it did achieve neutrality? AFAICS — but I'm not very clever at analysing histories — the content you removed had been in the article a long time, and had been recently changed to the version you restored. Bishonen | talk 16:11, 2 April 2018 (UTC).

• • • Sorry to be so long, I'm working around the clock, while recovering from a cold. The primary problem was the unsourced claim of the park being pseudoscience, which has negative connotations and really has to be sourced. You can't just go around randomly marking things as pseudoscience without sources. As for fundamentalist, that just came along for the ride I suppose, I would have to check the sources to see if that is accurate or not. It's a park and everyone is quick to throw politics at it, I just want to make sure it is sourced properly. Better to say nothing than attached unsourced negative claims. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:22, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

You have just removed content from the Ark Encounter article saying that the source didn't support it being pseudoscience, the reference here [11] clearly calls it pseudoscience. Theroadislong (talk) 20:31, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

The citation directly supporting that claim did not. A citation later did. That means it was using the wrong citation for that claim. I already used the talk page of the article, but I give up. You guys have fun arguing. All I care about is accuracy and proper inline citations of a controversial article, but I'm not up for this crap. And by all means, keep it on the article talk page, where it belongs. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:34, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2018).

Administrator changes

331dot • Cordless Larry • ClueBot NG

Gogo Dodo • Pb30 • Sebastiankessel • Seicer • SoLando

Guideline and policy news

• Administrators who have been desysopped due to inactivity are now required to have performed at least one (logged) administrative action in the past 5 years in order to qualify for a resysop without going through a new RfA.
• Editors who have been found to have engaged in sockpuppetry on at least two occasions after an initial indefinite block, for whatever reason, are now automatically considered banned by the community without the need to start a ban discussion.
• The notability guideline for organizations and companies has been substantially rewritten following the closure of this request for comment. Among the changes, the guideline more clearly defines the sourcing requirements needed for organizations and companies to be considered notable.
• The six-month autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) ended on 14 March 2018. The post-trial research report has been published. A request for comment is now underway to determine whether the restrictions from ACTRIAL should be implemented permanently.

Technical news

• There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee is considering a change to the discretionary sanctions procedures which would require an editor to appeal a sanction to the community at WP:AE or WP:AN prior to appealing directly to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA.

Miscellaneous

• A discussion has closed which concluded that administrators are not required to enable email, though many editors suggested doing so as a matter of best practice.
• The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team has released the Interaction Timeline. This shows a chronologic history for two users on pages where they have both made edits, which may be helpful in identifying sockpuppetry and investigating editing disputes.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Sonicfanboy074

Hi Dennis Brown,

This user noted has repeatedly over the course of their time here has changed information without reliable sources despite being warned multiple times about it. For example, I reverted an edit of theirs on Steven Universe where they claimed the show was also Japanese, and it's their third time being warned about it. --1989 (talk) 22:12, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

• He doesn't edit much, so I'm not sure about blocking him outright. I sampled some of his edits, several were unsourced (which isn't a policy violation on an individual basis) and some were valid edits, like changing Universal Studios to Universal Pictures. I would feel better about it if someone had actually tried to engage him on his user page first, perhaps linking WP:COMMUNICATE. I get a feeling they aren't likely to reply, but we kind of need a good faith effort first. He really hasn't passed the threshold that an admin can just use the tools, although it is understandably frustrating. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:19, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

  Adding original research is a privacy policy violation. For communication, I'm not sure, since they are known to remove messages they disagree with instead of making an argument. Also, they made additional changes after my warning, and they've been given their second final warning by Rivertorch. --1989 (talk) 06:35, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

  I'm not sure what you mean by privacy violation. If they were adding BLP violations, it would a bit easier to be aggressive, but this is adding one country's name to a show title. The one removal of a warning in June of 2017 doesn't really establish a pattern. My point is that to up and block him, I really need a bright line violation along the lines of WP:DE, vandalism, repeated BLP violations, edit warring or the like. This is kind of a mild but frustrating pattern, granted, but until there is a good faith effort at REAL communication, I just can't block. You could take it to ANI, but I think the community would conclude the same thing, that the first place to deal with the problem is their talk page with real words instead of a template. Not angry words, but an attempt to start a dialog. I have no idea if we are dealing with CIR or what, and no one will know until a discussion is TRIED. That is why I linked WP:COMMUNICATE. IF someone refused to engage in discussion, *real* discussion, then I have a foundation for action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:43, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

  I just messaged them. Hopefully they will explain themselves. -- 1989 (talk) 14:01, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

  I added to your message. This is the proper first step, and is best if it is more than one person. We try to communicate before we assume they won't. If they won't and continue to add material, I will add a stronger message about how that violates WP:DE, but I don't want to rush it as this is a bit borderline at this stage. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:40, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

  Since I got pinged, my two cents: Given the topics they seem to be interested in, I'm guessing it's a kid. This isn't necessarily a strike against them; we've had good editors, even admins, who were pretty young. And, as Dennis noted, they have made some constructive edits. Then again, in the ten months since they registered, they've received ten warning templates, three of them for alleged vandalism, and their only edit to date in user talk space was to remove two of those warnings from their own talk page. That doesn't bode well for their future here. As long as they're not on a vandalism spree, I think it's preferable to give them one last chance to either communicate or comply with the rules. If not...boom! Too bad Bishzilla doesn't still have the mop. I've always thought a block is best accompanied by a roar. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 16:01, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

  That is exactly what I concluded, they were likely young or otherwise "new to socializing". I don't think they mean to mess up, so yes, we should give them a chance, but if they are not able to communicate enough to be here, then that is a problem. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

  They’ve made another unsourced edit and has not responded to the message. -- 1989 (talk) 09:03, 5 April 2018 (UTC)