User talk:Dennisne

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Dennisne! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Doug Weller talk 19:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Contributing to Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Directories and indexes Where to: ask questions • make requests Tip of the day Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper)
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

March 2019[edit]

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at Talk:Gavin McInnes, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Doug Weller talk 19:33, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller Noted, I appreciate the professionalism. Now will something be done about Grayfell, he is clearly not fit to edit political pages, and refused to make even minor factual changes?Dennisne (talk) 19:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you think an editor is violating policy egregiously, you can complain at WP:ANI but you art too new I think to fully understand them and you might run into WP:BOOMERANG so I really would not advise it. You need to persuade others to agree with you on the content issues. Read and follow WP:AGF. Doug Weller talk 20:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Consider revising your post[edit]

Regarding your complaint at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Grayfell leftist gatekeeping on Stefan Molyneux. You've been previously warned about personal attacks (see above) and this post seems to be adding more. Consider withdrawing your complaint or choosing completely neutral wording to express it. A phrase like 'leftist gatekeeping' will probably be seen as a personal attack, as well as the 'his own bias', 'predictably refused' and so forth. Refer only to edits and not to people. Otherwise a block of your account is possible in line with the prior warning. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:53, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. How would you rephrase it? It literally is gatekeeping, and it literally is leftist. Should I just say that he's refusing to add valid critical points to an article? Shouldn't there be consideration made to the systematic issue of him with politically charged articles? Isn't there some kind of policy to distance editors who stir controversy? He has a history of unfair and controversial edits, as seen in his talkpage and contributions history. Dennisne (talk) 17:01, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly advise you to stop making personal attacks at ANI - accusations of "dishonesty" aren't acceptable, and nobody is obligated to agree with you. ANI addresses conduct, not content, and your conduct isn't what's expected there. Acroterion (talk) 22:59, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have not made any personal attacks! "Dishonesty" is not a personal attack, it is the undeniable fact of the complaint that I'm addressing. Grayfell knows that Molyneux is an ancap/libertarian, his sources confirm it, but he *dishonestly* refuses to put it in the main article. Please apologize or retract your accusation. Dennisne (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have ignored my warning, I've blocked you for 24 hours for repeated personal attacks after many warnings. Acroterion (talk) 23:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let me make it clear to you. If you continue to attack any editor in this vein, there are only a few options. One would be a topic ban from American Politics. But that would leave you stil free to use talk pages, so it probably wouldn't work. An interaction ban would have to be one way and the community often doesn't like that. So what would probably happen is another block. Given how you misused quotes from his talk page in the ANI discussion, I'm not at all convinced that if you continue anything other than an indefinite block would work. Doug Weller talk 12:24, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've already proposed the topic ban under on the ANI report, as well as a potential interaction ban. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 19:18, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Acroterion abused his roles as an admin - his 24-hour banning of me in the middle of a dispute was not based on any valid reason. He falsely accused me of personal attacking, when I did no such thing, and clearly explained the issue to him. Will someone higher up please revoke his admin privileges? My complaint on ANI was precisely the dishonesty of Grayfell (and perhaps other editors) - that was my complaint! This was not a personal attack. I even provided direct evidence of his dishonesty (namely, the very source that he uses explicitly says that Molyneux was a libertarian, in the very first line of their description of him on the cited page, he knew this, and yet he refuses to acknowledge it). That is literally dishonesty, and being a biased editor, and not acting in good faith. Again, none of these are personal attacks, but valid criticisms of his role as an editor. Blocking me, without refuting my allegations, was blatantly unprofessional and evidence of Acroterion's abuse of privileges.

On the other hand, this Kirbanzo guy actually did personally attack me (on the ANI page, instead of addressing my valid and evidence-based criticisms, he dismissed me and called me a "heckler") - and yet he was never reprimanded. This is blatantly unfair. Are there no legitimate wikipedia admins remaining?

Discretionary sanctions alert[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Ian.thomson (talk) 22:59, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 23:51, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Acroterion, you were being gentle when you briefly blocked them. You said, "if I see one more accusation of dishonesty, you'll be blocked"--well, there have been more, and the next step is simply an indefinite block. Drmies (talk) 23:52, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I was being gentle with 24 hour block, hoping that a block would make a dent in their attitude, but given the behavior up the page in which there is no indication that anything will change with this editor, I endorse the indef block. I'm not surprised by their response, unfortunately - it was about what I've come to expect in these situations. Acroterion (talk) 00:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Dennisne (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was not being disruptive. My allegation of dishonesty and bias was valid and evidence based. Dennisne (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I don't think that you are here to collaborate with other users to build this project- the definition of a NOTHERE block. You're here to push a point of view. That will not be permitted, and as such I am declining your request. I suspect being unblocked will require you to agree to a topic ban of some sort, but that will be up to the next reviewer, should you choose to make another request. 331dot (talk) 02:00, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Dennisne (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

331dot's block review was factually false - he certainly didn't provide any evidence to back his assertion - I was not pushing my point of view, but rather the view in the citations that were already deemed acceptable by Grayfell, namely the views of the SPLC (who are actually biased opponents of Molyneux). Grayfell is the one who should agree to a (temporary perhaps) topic ban since there was solid evidence that he was biased and dishonest and not acting in good faith. Dennisne (talk) 03:08, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your unblock request needs to focus on your conduct, not the conduct of others. Further, you're making some pretty serious accusations against another editor—and those are precisely the kind of aspersions that are incompatible with the aims of Wikipedia. —C.Fred (talk) 03:25, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Dennisne (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

C.Fred did not provide evidence that my conduct was disruptive or non-collaborative or otherwise unacceptable. I am confident that the record speaks for itself (my ANI post, and my original issue on Molyneux's talk page), I was constructively trying to correct a serious flaw in a deeply biased article, using perfectly valid and accepted procedures, and was summarily ignored by gatekeeping behavior. I'm aware of how serious my accusation of dishonesty and gatekeeping was, which is why I provided serious evidence (eg. Grayfell deliberately systematically ignoring information in a citation that he already accepted as reliable) and escalated the issue to ANI instead of leaving it to the talk page. Evidence based non-abusive critique is precisely the aim of Wikipedia and my posts were compatible with that. Dennisne (talk) 03:57, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your posts are so far out in left field that it's not really worth responding. The kind of comments you made are known as personal attacks on Wikipedia, even if in other places they might be acceptable. You are unwilling to adjust your behavior to what is expected on Wikipedia. Since this discussion is making no progress, I'm disabling your access to this talk page. See WP:UTRS for your other options. EdJohnston (talk) 04:09, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.