Re Deacon note[]
That does sound strange. I will look into it and see if I can't replicate it. Thanks for letting me know. -kdarrow 
take her for a spin! 20:37, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Deathclaw Official Lore[]
@Branebriar1930 In-game sources reveal that the Deathclaws were, indeed, originally created as a bio-weapon before the war. Also, one of the developers confirmed these creatures were refined by the master during the events of the first Fallout game. Please do your research before changing someone else's edit. -Lordtyrannus2.0 23:37 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Warning to Branebriar1930[]
@Branebriar1930 I understand that harassing you was wrong, but it felt like I had no other option. I was only trying to improve your wiki by restoring canonical information found in-game. However, you viewed this as an act of vandalism. Also, in my last post, I've explained how my first edits were justified via statements by the developers. Let this be a warring to you. I already altered one of the administrators about your possible "abuse of power". If this continues with other users, then you may be in violation of Fandom's terms of service. -Lordtyrannus2.0
Lordtyrannus2.0[]
Hi Brane,
I'm issuing a no-contact with Lordtyrannus until I get a chance to review everything as I can see the conversation between you and him escalating, and I want to avoid further conflict until I can mediate. Unfortunately due to multiple vaccinations and a blood draw, I will not be able to get to this today.
Thanks, Bleep
Re: Deathclaw page again[]
Hey Brane,
I will stay my hand for now, as bleep has taken it upon her to review the whole exchange. Let me know if there is anything else I can assist with. Have a great day and happy editing. –Findabair
The benefit of the doubt is often doubtful. 04:27, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
You have an itchy Undo finger[]
When you did a reversion without realizing what you were doing, I came to your talk page to talk about it, then I saw you were already in conflict with another user and being warned about it, so I looked at your edit history.
Almost all you do is to delete information from the wiki. It looks like you search for anything that could remotely qualify as "strategy" and delete everything associated with it, regardless of whether or not the information is actually factual information that is useful to someone who is actually playing the game.
There's opinion-based strategy that can be argued over, and that truly doesn't belong on a wiki, but in the case of the edit of mine that you reverted, I was just clarifying an existing comment that simply pointed out that the only way to wear a CHA+2 underarmor with all four CHA+1 limb armor pieces was to use the underarmor on the page. That's not strategy, that's just a fact, and it's a very useful one to know when playing the game.
Worse, you simply reverted my edit without taking the time to recognize that the supposed "strat" was already present on the page and I was just clarifying it. I know you didn't read the edit, because if you had, you would have realized you should delete the entire note. Except you shouldn't.
I've looked over your last month's changes and there's a lot of stuff similar to this. Stop looking for nails to hammer. Removing useful factual information from the wiki is not beneficial to its purpose. People come to this wiki to learn about playing the game, not to study for an exam on the Fallout universe. Help them do that. Felice Enellen (talk) 03:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I do question your competency as a mod[]
To quote you:
> subjective strategies or opinions are not allowed
The content in question was not subjective or an opinion. It was factual. I pointed this out in my comment above. But apparently, as with the modification you reverted, you didn't spend enough time actually reading what was actually written to notice that.
To quote you again:
> it took me about half a second to see that which is why I reverted it so fast
It took you half a second to jump to an incorrect conclusion. That's not appropriate moderation. Anyone who contributes their time and effort to adding information to the wiki deserves more than half a second of your time. I would not call such moderation "good faith". I would call it trigger-happy.
> (you know, because its my job as an mod)
It is not your job as a mod to make half-second judgments about deleting edits that other people have dedicated some of their life to write in a volunteer role in good faith for the benefit of others.
This wiki is an information repository that serves to better the lives of people playing the game(s). It is not a ghetto to be policed. Your attitude appears to me to be entirely unbecoming of a moderator, cold and unfriendly. So yes, I do question your competency as a mod.
To my eye, even ignoring my own edit, a lot of your reverts have been deleting useful factual, objective information from the wiki in the name of following the letter of the wiki's law, rather than the intent of the law, which in the case of strats is to prevent people from posting page after page of long-winded advice that may or may not be valid or appropriate.
The fact that you didn't take the extra seconds to determine whether or not the content was objective, rather than subjective, concerns me. I worry about how much useful factual information you might already have deleted from the wiki in the name of removing "strategy". Nukapedia is a great resource and I don't like the idea of it taking damage.
Now, you can either bristle at me and try to claim I'm making a personal attack and maybe even go so far as to ban me, but that's not what I'm doing here. I'm questioning your ability, or perhaps I should more generously say "commitment", since I'm sure you're able if you take the care needed, to perform your job, and not your worth as a person. So don't go there. I suggest you take it as constructive criticism instead. Felice Enellen (talk) 15:08, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Requesting help[]
I hope you'll forgive me as I'm still learning the workings of Nukapedia, but there's an unmarked location in New Vegas I wish to document. Any chance you might be able to give me some pointers on how to go about that, or maybe direct me to someone who could help? Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CornPortal (talk • contribs). Please sign your posts with ~~~~!
Thanks for the help[]
Thank you for the help. I'll remember the respond in the appropriate location next time. Thanks for that as well. The tips you provided are quite clear and leave me with no doubts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CornPortal (talk • contribs). Please sign your posts with ~~~~!
Sister Harriet[]
The note isn't speculative, it just wasn't made exactly clear. Sister Harriet is the unnamed Child of Atom met there, and that's confirmed by the player prompt for dialogue with Richter: "I was sent here by a Child of Atom I met outside of Acadia." That specifically refers to the encounter with the unnamed Child of Atom. That mentioned-only character page should be converted to a full NPC article. LaymansReign (talk) 15:16, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Re: Desdemona[]
The point I added to her page is indeed relevant to quests, but not any one specific quest, not even Tradecraft, and is more about getting around Desdemona's refusal to talk to the player. The issue I've seen (I've found other players commenting on her refusal to engage in dialogue) is that her wording to the effect of "please work with us instead of them" implies the player will be cutting ties with the Minutemen to work with the Railroad instead, but nothing of the sort happens. So, regardless of which faction the player is backing, if they have quests that involve Desdemona somehow (for me specifically, it was warning the Railroad about the Institute's plan to attack Bunker Hill), they might as well agree to join the Railroad just to make her happy so they can talk to her properly, and there's no downside to agreeing anyway. DrakeyC (talk) 02:00, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
citation filled[]
i detected a bit of apprehension from your edit note "Nate literally says this in the voiceover." like i said in my edit, i wanted a citation because i was curious where the information was from. i wasn't trying to challenge the claim, only to understand and clarify it, because i can't quote the fo4 voice-over off the top of my head. it's my understanding that all lore articles should somehow cite their assertions. i hope you won't take exception when i request citations in the future. the article is better for your expertise, thank you. in your defense i did once use a citation request to antagonistically vibe check the claim that the Fallout special encounters weren't canon. but in my defense it was very funny and we got somewhere with it Anachorite (talk)
Crosswiki harassment[]
If a user goes on to other wikis outside of Community Central to contact you over disputes, file a complaint through Contact Me for harassment so Fandom Staff can deal with it. Though they're off on weekends. Great Mara (talk) 21:12, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Emptycan[]
ik he'll go after me, still needed to warn him about what hes doing, its all good tho. Hope you have a good day and dont let this dude get to you. 
21:13, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
LGBT[]
Sorry, but I don't see myself the person to get involved in this, I've not contributed to the page myself and am not sure what you're trying to get an answer for. Try to solve it or otherwise ask another person who has contributed to mediate or ask around in Discord. Jspoel 
17:00, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
LGBT Page edits and user conduct[]
Hi Brane,
I know that you have been talked about for this before but the way you have interacted with Anachorite in regards to the LGBT page issue is way out of line. You've been talked to before about interacting with users, and I was not particularly pleased reading through your statements about LGBT issues in regards to the wiki, and how you reacted when the user in question explained they were disabled. That's why I'm giving you an official warning to knock this off. This behavior is wildly unfriendly to a user who was attempting to interact with you in a cordial manner.
Also this is the last time I or any other rights holder is going to tell you this, you cannot lock a page to resolve an editing conflict. If I see you threaten that again I will have to put you up for a motion of no confidence.
You know better than this behavior. ---bleep196- (talk) 00:28, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- Who was doing the argument has absolutely zero bearing on why I issued a warning beyond this being a pattern of behavior for you. If anything, I should have been more stringent and moved for a different action because immediately after my warning you doubled down on the hostile behavior. We are strictly discussing your inability to approach any sort of editing issue civilly and in a productive and helpful manner.
- "Do you want to be treated like a fellow human being or a special needs case?"
- What on gods green earth made you believe saying this was acceptable? This is wildly offensive and dehumanizing to people with special needs. While I don't necessarily approve of the way Anachorite used the r-slur, it is indeed very common for individuals to reclaim slurs by using them to refer to themselves by that, and I will be asking them not to use that term on the wiki. That does not, whatsoever, excuse the blatant ableism and stunning behavior on display from a content moderator. While I was originally going to let this issue lie, the combination of you preceding past my warning, ignoring the user's hard-set boundaries to continue the conversation, is forcing my hand.
- I'm issuing you a monthlong ban, and strongly recommending you reevaluate how you interact with members of the community. This isn't 2012 or 4 chan, you hold special rights on the wiki and community members look to you to be a role model as an editor. ---bleep196- (talk) 13:16, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
your comments yesterday[]
i am giving you permission upfront to delete this from your talk page if having it remain here is distressing. that's fine. i would strongly advise against promptly replying to it. it may be wise to not reply at all. i do not want or expect anything from you whatsoever but space to say my piece.
- "That means that we shouldn't add information solely to please one group or another (asexuals, hetrosexuals, Turkish people, cab drivers whoever)."
this was the core of your argument. it is a meaningless sentiment. it evaporates in a meta environment. the equation of marginalized communities with arbitrary demographics is sophomoric. it is beneath engaging with. it's the colorblind argument. it is not equality, it is erasure and assimilation.
further, there is no rule closely resembling this, and no parameters for the sentiment. were there fallout-related content only interesting to turkish people and taxi drivers on the wiki, most of us would be fine with that. it sounds like that could be interesting to anyone, actually.
the contested line was a short factual statement about fallout game mechanics, and you poised like it was against policy because someone might be interested in it. common sense made it a logical inclusion, it was accurate, flowed well, and was useful to people, so it should stay. nobody stood to gain anything from your insistence that the line be deleted, including yourself. intellectualizing or litigating that with fine text and precedent in the name of your principles is self-indulgent or performative at the cost of the quality of our content. it is a unique personal notion.
- "How can I treat you seriously when you go off on some tangent about sexual assault? What did that have to do with anything?"
the connection between a sexually traumatized person and the option to avoid sex is self-explanatory.
i mentioned victims of sexual assault because those people will read the article, and i care how they feel when they read it. i care specifically enough to keep them in mind when i write pages involving sex. i was asking you to reflect this decency and you became overwhelmingly confused and alarmed, and called it dishonest on several axēs.
additionally, since you need this spelled out for you: a significant portion of asexual people are survivors of sexual assault, or rape, or torture. if you had any context for the conversation whatsoever, you would have made this connection instantly.
- "How can you expect me to respect you when you don't even respect yourself (calling yourself a retard)? Do you want to be treated like a fellow human being or a special needs case? Aside from that, you seem to be using your feelings to dictate your argument, and that is intellectually dishonest, THAT I can't respect."
i told you i am a retarded person so you would treat me like i am mentally disabled. it was meant to be brevity. it was meant to convey how fallible i am, how much i doubt my own perception. i did not imagine 'retards' were a category beneath your respect. i did not imagine i might encounter such a person, of such stature, in a community such as this.
sometimes, marginalized people casually call themselves slurs that have been used to hurt them. this makes the slur less powerful, and bluntly contextualizes the struggles the person may face. in modern times, understanding this is basic socialization.
up to that point, i was still hoping we could come to an understanding. i thought each of my messages would be the one that might make you realize we should cooperating with the community. they all just made you meaner.
- "No, I am acting in the interest of upholding the THE POLICY, I do know how that sounds, but this wiki has worked hard to make it as not open to interpretation as far as possible. As for being 'inappropriately indifferent to the human element' why should you get to decide such a thing?"
- "I don't really know what you meant about 'prioritizing the argument over me' though, you should have done that."
- --can you identify a kind thing you've ever said to me? have you ever been interested in my capacity to think?
- I'm honestly not really sure what you are trying to say here.
i'm proud to say that, on a good day, squabbles about science fiction do not supersede my interest in the wellbeing of my fellow humans, even in a volunteer academic space. we were being unnecessarily mean to each other. we did not need to do that to sort the matter at hand. what we engaged in yesterday was undignified and improper, and nigh-all of my attempts to de-escalate were insulted.
you've repeatedly implied you fail to see how this sentence draws a distinction between fellow human beings and special needs cases
- "Do you want to be treated like a fellow human being or a special needs case?"
you need to put yourself in the shoes of another person, look at these words, and ask yourself if they are the words of a dignified intellectual adult. i was asking you to consider that i might be having a mental issue preventing me from seeing reason. you drew a distinction between disabled people and humans and said "pick a side." that was violent of you. and you were not sorry. you were outright cruel to me when i then tried to end the conversation.
let's take a moment--i requested a public discussion three times, and then tried to end the conversation repeatedly and you just kept going. at one point you announced you were taking the conversation to an admin, without telling me who. that was all very alarming behavior. it was obvious from before you posted on my talk page that you were avoiding a community discussion because you knew which course of action had the highest chance of you getting your way, and you were comfortable forcing that course of action on me. you kept trying to get the last word and ultimately threatened to exert authority over me. these are tactics you use to win a fight. i do not come here to fight. i come here to learn, share, and help.
- "That's how I would want to be treated if I had autism, like everyone else!. If you are incapable of understanding that then I truly pity you."
i have life-affecting disorders related to memory, emotion, senses, logic. i think and behave differently from you. i often don't understand what people mean by their words, and i'm prone to having illogical intense emotions. i was hoping to be understood, not othered. "treating people with mental disorders like anyone else" as an absolute value is not equality, it is erasure.
i like myself and my life. i like being autistic. you can not talk down to me in a way that will actually make me feel below you, no matter how you word it. pity someone else.
-Anachorite (talk) 21:35, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Understood, you are unreachable.[]
"Why are you even talking to me? you you were the one who said this convocation was over, stick to that. Branebriar1930 (talk) 08:37, 11 April 2023 (UTC)"
I ended the conversation because you dehumanized me, as detailed above. I am entitled to react to your dehumanization after I calmed down.
I was trying to reach you. On any level. To help you understand, on any level, what you did wrong. I spent hours typing that. Because I thought there might be one decent bone in your body. Further, you are a mod. I should be able to talk to you.
But it's now 100% clear I cannot reach you. It is good to know there was truly never anything I could do. It is good to know you have no interest in apologizing for saying people who have special needs are sub-human. It's good to know you have no regrets about the way you snuck around and manipulated people.
Never ever talk to me again. You make me feel unsafe. Do not come try to get the last word on my talk page. Do not bother me again. The way you have treated me is disgusting. Leave me alone now. Anachorite (talk) 09:18, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Investigation[]
Brane, following your block and possible misuse of rights forwarded to me by FreshYoMama, it has been decided there will be an investigation in line of our administration policy. You can read here what the possible consequences are. A group of three rights holders (not FreshYoMama) will do the work for this, and they will advise me in due time. Just letting you know so you know what's going on. Jspoel 17:51, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
hey[]
i think your ban's up ? i know i said never ever talk to me again but don't worry about it. it's fine.
all the best--Anachorite (talk) 20:09, 16 May 2023 (UTC)