(Note that this an absurd example, for the sake of development only)

Voice your opinion on sanctions for this administrator ( talk page)

• Example ( talk) 18:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply
• Example1 ( talk) 18:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply
• Example2 ( talk) 18:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply
• Example3 ( talk) 18:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Administrator has been notified of certification here [1]] Example ( talk) 18:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Dennis has been breached policy a number of times by unblocking editors violating WP:3RR, [2]] [3] [4] [5] [6]. He was warned about this several times, including at ANI [7] [8] [9]] and by a number of people on his talk page [10]] [11]] [12]. His reply has consistently been that WP:IAR trumps the requirements to block for violations and that it is within the discretion of the administrator. As this has continued for over 6 months, there is a clear patterns that is inconsistent with our goals, and his actions are damaging to the project as a whole. Example ( talk) 18:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Dennis Brown has repeatedly badgered other administrators who have blocked WP:3RR violators on their talk pages, beyond the limits of good faith. Examples include [13], [14], [15] and [16]. When questioned about these activities, he constantly uses WP:IAR as a justification to unarchive discussions at WP:ANI [17], [18] and has on three occasions, unblocked editors against the judgement of the community [19], [20] and [21]. He may mean well, but it has become disruptive. Example1 ( talk) 18:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply

We don't need soft admins and Dennis is too easy on violators, as evidenced by the diffs above. Example2 ( talk) 18:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply

I also agree with the above sentiments. Example3 ( talk) 18:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Question by Example10

4. You used [22] and [23] but these are examples where the blocked editor made a request for review on their talk page, and seemed to indicate that they would not continue to violate 3RR. Example10 ( talk) 18:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply

A: Seriously, in both those cases the editor basically just said "Ok, I will stop" and didn't really offer any assurance that they would stop reverting and being disruptive. I think the bar needs to be a little higher to unblock someone that Dennis does, it seems. Example ( talk)

A: Exactly, he will unblock at the drop of a hat. Example31 ( talk)

Question by Example11

6. What is the big deal? Blocks are cheap, if they went back to edit warring, you could have reblocked them, but it looks like they didn't in these examples. Where is the "damage" to the Project? Example11 ( talk) 18:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply

A: It is a big deal if you are a good faith editor on an article and someone keeps unblocking disruptive edit warriors, making life difficult for you. Example3 ( talk) 18:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Question by Example12

7. I notice that just over 6 months ago, two of the unblocks he made were block made by Example1, which makes this look like a personal vendetta.

A: How long ago is meaningless and it fits the criteria to file. He still did what he did. Example1 ( talk) 18:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Question by Dennis Brown

8. For Example1, isn't it true that you have threatened to "get the bit stripped" here [24], on my talk page, regarding something completely unrelated to any of the "crimes" you are accusing me of in this action? This smells a bit of bad faith. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC) reply

A: That has nothing to do with that event, which I didn't bring up here, so I don't think I should have to answer it. Example1 ( talk) 18:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Actually, it is a pretty good question that I think should be answered. MrSkeptical999 ( talk) 18:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply

In each and every case submitted, I maintain that I was either responding to a legitimate unblock request, or exercising my judgement as administrator. I might add that none of the editors that I unblocked had to be reblocked again directly after unblocking, demonstrating that the process is actually working as it should. I know it might hurt someone's feelings when their actions are reversed, but in no example was wheel warring evident or even claimed. As for WP:IAR, it was properly invoked only in circumstances where the action genuinely benefited Wikipedia, as evidenced by the lack of administrative action needed soon there after. I stand by the decisions made in the examples given. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Question by Example11

1. You say that none of the people you unblocked had to be reblocked, but in Article, an IP showed up [25] and started reverting back the exact same changes that the user had been blocked for. Don't you think that it was just the same user, sockpuppeting? Example13 ( talk) 18:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply

A: If sockpuppeting was suspected, then it should have been filed at WP:SPI. It really isn't fair to introduce that since socking was never even claimed at the time, and that would require filing a case now, and the information may be stale. This only introduces doubt, not facts. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Question by Example43

2. You do seem quick to unblock editors, more so than other admins. What is your rationale? Example43 ( talk) 18:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply

A: I have very rarely used WP:IAR as a justification. Usually, it is the idea of WP:BLOCK, that once the threat of disruption is passed, the block becomes punitive and is unfair. Once I can establish that an editor is not likely to become a problem, I unblock them. History seems to indicate my track record is pretty good in making this determination. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Question by Keepscases

3. Who is your favorite Beetle and why?

A

• Note that Dennis has never been brought to ANI on this, even if it has been mentioned in discussions reported on other people, so it seems a bit premature. Example33 ( talk) 18:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply

1. No action Sounds like a witchhunt to me. Evil999 ( talk) 18:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply
2. No action and trouts for the noms. I notice that just over 6 months ago, two of the unblocks he made were blocks made by one of the certifiers, Example1, which makes this look like a personal vendetta. TroutGiver101 ( talk) 18:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply
3. No action But in truth, he has been a bit quick to unblock. Still, there are worse things and I think a trouting is sufficient. Anything else would be punitive. Re-blocks are just as cheap as blocks. MiddleO'Road ( talk) 18:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply
4. 2x Affirm We need more admins that do this. FanClub999 ( talk) 18:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply
5. Affirm Meh, everyone is making a big deal out of nothing here. Meh999 ( talk) 18:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply

1. Restrict from handling unblock requests for 6 months. Obviously he is too lenient. Str1ct1 ( talk) 18:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply
2. Sanction I think Dennis needs a couple months away from the tools, allowing him to work more as an editor and experience the effects of 3RR first hand. BreakGiver ( talk) 18:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply

1. Desyop Dennis as a menace to Wikipedia. Admins should be able to block without anyone questioning them. Example86 ( talk) 18:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply
2. Desyop Off with his head! Drone999 ( talk) 18:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply