User talk:Dennisne

March 2019
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Consider revising your post
Regarding your complaint at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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
Ian.thomson (talk) 22:59, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

December 2019
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:. Drmies (talk) 23:51, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , 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)
 * 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)