User talk:Dennis Brown

---

I'm glad...

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

Modification of ban

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

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

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

AE

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

Wikipedia:Community health initiative

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

Escalation of template disruption by Codename Lisa

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