Jump to content

User talk:Dennis Brown

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MathewTownsend (talk | contribs) at 13:46, 30 December 2012 (→wondering: oh well). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
RfA candidate S O N S % Status Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
Worm That Turned 222 2 3 99 Open 09:47, 18 November 2024 4 days, 10 hours no report

Kiefer

Hi Dennis. I see you have commented on Kiefer's talk page, so I thought you should be made aware that he has banished me from his page and has removed a number of my comments (including where I pointed out that Sven has been in email contact with the RfA candidate, has concluded that he no longer has any concerns, and has switched his !vote to Support). I think those comments are pertinent to the discussion and should be seen by any reviewing admin. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:39, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I just walked in, it looks like someone took his talk page access. I was hoping to bring a little calm into that discussion by just providing a perspective that didn't take either side, but since it failed, I just smiled and backed away. Most of the time, Kiefer has an interesting perspective on things, but once he goes off the deep end, there is no saving him. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:54, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, it's a shame he switches into attack mode so readily - apart from that unfortunate tendency, I think quite highly of him. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:05, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I do too, even if we got a rough start at my RfA, and I generally get along with him just fine. That is why I tried to start a process of walking him away from the edge of cliff. Once I saw he took my comment out of context, I just struck it per his request and backed away, not wanting to make the situation worse, concluding that I couldn't help him. I was really trying to help him but I don't think he understood that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:19, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Personal attacks hatted
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Striking something you've written, and at the same time justifying what you originally wrote, is a definition of disingenuousness (besides detroying any meaning whatever that the act of striking might have). Apparently you admit you only struck to placate his request, and defended what you originally wrote. (I doubt that would satisfy a logical guy like Kiefer!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:08, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear from your comment, Dennis, you consider yourself a "savior". (And on December 25th, too! How appropriate.) p.s. The "savior" stuff has gotten a bit old. (False self-credit.) Why not give it a rest in 2013? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:52, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you are looking for an apology for my trying to help Kiefer, I wouldn't hold your breath. It is no secret I think highly of him. For that matter, if I think I can help any blocked editor understand and get unblocked and return to editing, I will try. My use of the word "save" was a "pool" analogy, and surely this was obvious, even to you. I'm not a Christian, so I don't use that word in the same way that you might, so that comment seems steeped in bias. Kiefer politely asked for one of two scenarios "Please strike that statement or revise it if your intention is different.", and I quickly complied giving him both, explaining my intention AND striking it so no one would misinterpret it. I even provided him a link to the best admin to take concerns regarding sexual harassment, as I took his concern seriously. If he found anything inappropriate in my (failed) attempt to find some middle ground, he would have said so, or emailed me. You are assuming a lot of bad faith, and honestly, turning it into a personal attack against me. Seriously, why would I go out of my way to say "Without comment on this current disagreement..." unless my goal was to stay completely uninvolved in the debate so I could possibly unblock him?
One of our first interactions was when I went to ANI to get his talk page access restored over a different block, against the wishes of the blocking admin. Our last interaction was when I congratulated him for the birth of his baby girl, and to tell him I had put his uploaded image of him and his daughter as the lead photo in the article Father. Kiefer knows I wish nothing but good things for him. Think whatever you want, but you are so off in your interpretation of my intentions that it boggles the mind. Please just go away and come back some other day. Frankly, I'm disgusted by this display. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 04:01, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a nice photo :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:44, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dance around it if you will Dennis, but the sentence you struck, you also justified in the same post. That makes no sense to a logical person (sorry if logic or consistency offends you). And I'm not the one using the word "save" -- you did, and do. (And for what's "disgusting", let me remind you, when Elen said you "saved" me at a spurious & baseless ANI initiated out of frustration of a noob, well, that was pretty disgusting, and made me wanna puke! And I'm quite sure she said that, just as a dig to me, since she knows how to get under my skin, and enjoyed doing so.) If you wanna insult me, be braced for insults back. You are constantly telling everyone how you are "the last to block". (We hear this so much, kinda makes one wonder why you are so obsessed over having the bit and power to block, that you need to remind us over and over and over again that you have that power. It seems as though you use this as an implicit threat: "If I, Dennis the angelic one, am 'last to block', and even I think block is appropriate in this case, then you can betcha by golly your nickers that block is completely warranted in this case, no questions asked.") The pristine, angle-like Dennis Brown. As I've said before, you drink your own Koolaid, and that's not healthy. Merry Xmas. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:03, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ihardlythinkso, you have judged this one astonishingly badly - Dennis has not come remotely close to insulting either Kiefer or you. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:14, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fucking shit. (He said what I said was "disgusting" to him.) Give me a fucking break. (If that isn't insulting ...) And I never said he insulted Kiefer -- maybe you should quit stuffing words in my mouth and making me accountable for them, that I didn't say, huh!? I said by striking his comment, and then justifying the same comment in the very same post ... that it was disingenuous. And probably would not be accepted by a logical guy like Kiefer. And that is all. (But what the H am I doing talkin' to you?? Why don't you people show some common courtesy and leave a two-party conversation as two-party instead of butting in all the time?? I guess that is the rudeness of the WP?!? Do your part to clean it up and stay the fuck out of my conversations with someone else, okay?) Merry Xmas. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:26, 25 December 2012 (UTC) p.s. The WP shit is active -- you can see it here, folks!!![reply]
Er, I beg your pardon? This was a two-way conversation between Dennis and I before *you* butted in! Anyway, this is not your talk page, it is Dennis's - which means he has the right to tell me to shut up and go away, but you do not. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:33, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ihardlythinkso, for the second time: go away. I've done all the explaining I need to do. I have no idea what comment of Elen's you are talking about, and I don't really care since I'm not responsible for her words. You are just soapboxing and making personal attacks, and doing so with an astonishing lack of clue. I really don't want to repeat myself, go away, come back in 2013, but you are not welcome here until then. This starting to look like Suicide by cop, and I want no part of it. Any further posts by you this year will be reverted by me or any talk page stalker. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:38, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!


Till is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Till 04:50, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!


TheGeneralUser (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hey Dennis! Wishing you a very Happy Merry Christmas :) TheGeneralUser (talk) 12:02, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection

I was reverted again today at the Union of Orthodox Hebrew Congregations. Can you semiprotect this please? The edit-warring has lasted over a month with no explanation being provided for the blanking. I have tried RFPP to no avail. 82.132.246.70 (talk) 12:13, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that it looks suspicious; a BLP concern and an IP single purpose account. However, I assure you that the section is well sourced (8 different references) to various newspapers. There is no "content dispute" - unless you consider a section blanking tag a valid discussion - and I request that you protect the page so that only autoconfirmed accounts can edit this page. I am frustrated, I have been repeatedly reverted for over a month without explanation. 82.132.246.70 (talk) 14:20, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ... I guess for your begrudging help. I am surprised you think the neutral version is that of a serial section blanker who has been reverted by ClueBot and other patrolling editors, while my properly sourced version has been reverted. 82.132.246.70 (talk) 14:34, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, what you are adding is a BLP violation. Just because sources are talking about claims of a crime doesn't mean we can add them. I have protected the article, but because of your addition. I've reverted that out as WP:BLPCRIME clearly says we do NOT add this kind of material for simple claims of a crime. Do not add it to any other article, as that is a violation of WP:BLP. Please familiarize yourself with the policies relating to biographies of living persons. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:33, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It isn't about the other person, it is about adding material that someone has been accused of a crime. I haven't edited the article and not familiar with the subject matter, so I only removed the material that I knew didn't belong, per WP:BLPCRIME. Not everyone accused of a crime is guilty, and in the US (where enwp's servers are located) you are presumed innocent until found guilty by a judge/jury. That is why we don't add that kind of material. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:38, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Try telling that to my daughter. What national papers have reported, you have objected to. Have a shitty Christmas. 82.132.246.70 (talk) 14:52, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We aren't a newspaper. If you would just read WP:BLPCRIME you would understand. Feel free to stay away if you are just going to be rude. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you remove the Jimmy Savile allegations while you're on your righteous crusade? I am used to people ignoring my cries of pain but I am surprised to encounter similar callosity on wikipedia. 82.132.246.70 (talk) 15:00, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Savile has been dead for over a year and is therefore not subject to the constraints of WP:BLPCRIME. Dennis is properly enforcing Wikipedia policy, nothing more. Wikipedia is not a platform for you to air your personal grievances, no matter how deeply you feel them.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:19, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why is my plight less important than those affected by Freddie Starr, Dave Lee Travis, Stuart Hall, Wilfred De'ath who are all alive and whose alleged misdemeanors have been reported here? 82.132.246.70 (talk) 15:25, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked at them to know there was a problem, and today is a bad day since I'm about to go spend the rest with family. The only reason I knew about THIS problem was that you brought it to my attention. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:32, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll jump back in to try to help a little. First, I know this is personal for you, but Dennis's actions are not personal. Your plight is not less important or more important than any other person related to a victim of alleged child molestation; no one is trying to diminish that. Second, Wikipedia has many articles. Sometimes articles have problems that come to the attention of someone who can correct the problem. Sometimes they don't. Unfortunately, that may create inconsistencies among articles as to application of policy. Dennis made the right decision here, in my view. If another article has material that violates policy, it should be corrected, not the other way around. Third, I took the Starr article and looked at it as it was the first on your list. No one reported a problem with the article. Thus, unless someone happens to notice the addition of the child molestation accusation (I assume that's what you're referring to), it would remain until someone did and challenged it. I'm not going to express an opinion on whether the Starr material violates WP:BLPCRIME, but it would not surprise me if someone argued that it did. However, there is an important distinction between the Starr and the Union articles. One of the exceptions to BLPCRIME is WP:WELLKNOWN. It could easily be argued that Starr is much better known than the rabbi. I'm not going to look at all the other articles - honestly, I'm just too busy at the moment.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:40, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA collaboration for the New Year?

What do you think?--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 12:33, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

..

..


Seasons greetings to you and yours
Dougweller (talk) 13:36, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BN thread

I posted to User_talk:Ligulem#BN before seeing your "we need to be as welcoming as we are inquisitive and have a better tone in the questions", but I'm happy to see we are on the same page.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:20, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is a bit of a Catch 22. We DO want to be more inviting to users coming back. I would imagine most are coming back only long enough to keep the bit, prompted by the email, not just coincidentally coming back. But yes, we should welcome them back as we would any editor. Asking question (properly worded) is appropriate, however. In my mind, when we remove the bit from the user, they are still technically an admin. The bit is removed only as a security measure, not for cause. As such, when they return to claim the bit, they should be treated like any other admin. Part of being an admin is being willing to answer questions about their actions or lack of, and in part, this helps verify who they are. Obviously, we need to be more polite in asking them and not make it feel like they are being interrogated, and TRM's methods did cross over into that, but I think that wasn't really his intention, he was just overreacting to the previous problems a bit. Part of the battle seems to be two lines of thought, MBisanz (and surely others) is on the side that the Crats must act on policy in a very rigid and strict way: resysop unless there is a policy reason why you can't. Others tend to subscribe to the idea that the Crats can exercise some discretion in making the call, based on the best interests of Wikipedia. There is logic to each argument, and at this point I can't claim to know which is "best" or "correct". This division seems to be the underlying issue on several discussions there. This is a very unusual set of circumstances that is not likely to be repeated, so I'm looking forward to things returning to normal in a week. Until then, I think we should try to meet in the middle, and be extra cautious in our questioning, but still ask the questions. Of course, that is a Crat board and I'm not a Crat, so I don't want to push the point too hard. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:59, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Happy holidays!

Happy Holidays!
From the frozen wasteland of Nebraska, USA! MONGO 12:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 December 2012

N. R. Narayana Murthy

Just in case you wish to comment, I filed a report at WP:ANEW, and I mentioned your name in passing.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:37, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WADC (radio station)‎ and other points

Hey Dennis, hope your Christmas was a good one. When you have a moment, could you move WADC (radio station)‎ back to WADC. The page was moved from its proper place (at WADC) against MOS and naming convensions. Thanks. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm a little short on time today, but I think you need to address the move with the editor, so I'm not stepping on someone's toes. I think you are right on your assessment, but he is a long time editor and there may be issues I'm not aware of. You can point him here if you want. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:24, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hollisz

Just noticed, on the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zimmermanh1997 front, User:Hollisz has, once again, posted more "poor edits" here and here. These are the first two edits after coming off a 31 hour block by User:Drmies. I will post this information to the SPI page. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Brought Hollisz to AIV per Drmies instructions after the 31 hour block. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But it isn't sockpuppeting. There is no overlap. I've closed that case. If he is being disruptive, then Drmies knows how to handle that aspect. It isn't socking to stop using one account and start using another. He could have forgotten a password, for example. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:48, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
True, he could have, it just felt DUCKy to be since he switched from the Zimmermanh1997 account, then to the IP, then to Hollisz. AIV will, hopefully, handle the Hollisz account. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:51, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No question it is him, I'm just saying there are legitimate reasons and allowed uses for multiple accounts as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:55, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
True, I just don't think he is doing this for those good reasons. I know, AGF. Do you think it would easier to protect the pages he frequents or maybe setup an edit filter to prevent him from making these edits? It has worked in the past with other users. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:05, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If he is doing something disruptive or against policy, an admin can take action on it. I just can't for sockpuppeting. I don't think an edit filter will work. Like all disruptive behaviors, you have to start by talking to him on his talk page (in a calm manner that assumes good faith) and try to fix the problem at the lowest level. For an admin to take any action, it has to be shown that the least aggressive methods have been attempted and failed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:51, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After I took him to AIV (per Drmies instructions), Diannaa posted a personal, calm, non-templated warning, but to no avail. Edit-warring continues. :S I updated the AIV post as I am unsure what else I can do. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:40, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like Diannaa blocked him. We have to give everyone a chance for someone to conform, she did. I just haven't been on much lately, it is getting to that time of year when I will be scarce for a few months, and I actually have to "work" at work, so it is often hard for me to research deep enough to take action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays!

Happy holidays.
Best wishes for joy and happiness. Also, best of luck to the new year! Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Just wanted to get my two cents in as well :) Happy Holidays, Happy New Year, Et ceterA, Et ceterA! -- JoannaSerah (talk) 22:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Petrucciani

Check out this. If you spot the Chopin influences you'd be right, and he's buried very close to him in Paris. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 15:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Powers

Hello Dennis, First of all thank you for your reviewing of the SPI case and quick decision. However I noticed that User:Andrew Powers is not blocked indefinitely as you might have assumed here [2] as in the block log they have only been blocked by Kuru for 2 weeks (see [3]). As the main account User:Andrew J Powers which was renamed to User:Andrew Powers back in april 2012, is the actual main account now, so they might need to be indefinitely blocked as you said. Regards. TheGeneralUser (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hank Harrison

I just want to let you know that I do understand you, I am also reluctant to repeat a clearly defamatory claim about a 72 old man originally made in the context of a apparently bitter divorce custody hearing and then repeated by Love who obviously doesn't remember anything from then. But I don't see how we can have the biography and not include both the accusations and Harrison's response to it since both have been widely published by secondary sources. That is why I think we should delete the article, it is too much of a mess for wikipedia to get involved in a dispute between Courtney Love and her father.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Without question, I know your argument is in good faith and I understand your reasoning, even if I disagree with you. It is a Catch 22, which makes me want to default to excluding it. Like you, I'm hoping it will simply get deleted and make the point moot. Until then, it is at a standstill, we both have differing opinions and can just wait for others to pipe in to see if a consensus can develop. I'm a fan of WP:BRD and letting the system work, even when I don't agree with the outcome. I never take stuff like this personal, and glad to see you don't either. Neither of us have a dog in this hunt, we both are just doing what we think is the proper interpretation of policy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've requested additional comments at tyhe BLPN and at the talkpage of the biography of Courtney Love where the same claims are currently included.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great minds think alike :) I was thinking that this would be a good idea, glad to see you already started. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Socks

Dennis, please look at User talk:186.212.143.98. I'm comfortable with the block, but I'm not sure that the user isn't correct about the Dalai lama ding dong part. If you look at the Dalai lama SPI report, you'll note that User:Marokwitz tied the IPs to BilalSaleh and Guinsberg, which the IP admits to. Marokwitz also tied them to the Dalai lama, but now I'm not so sure. If you scroll up the report, you'll notice that other IPs have been tied to Dalai lama, but none geolocate to Brazil - they all edit from the UK. Now the IP admits to abusing multiple accounts, but I want to be accurate about who is the master when I block. If I don't hear from you because of your schedule, I'll try to enlist the support of another SPI person. Of course, if any of you talk page stalkers want to pitch in ...--Bbb23 (talk) 19:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guinsberg is BilalSaleh, confirmed by CU and behaviorial similarities, and geolocates to Brazil as noted before at ANI. Dalai Lama Ding Dong generally geolocates to Northern England/Scotland. I filed an SPI thinking that Bilal Saleh was a sock of Dalai lama ding dong. The CU admin, on discovering that the BilalSaleh and the Guinsberg account were connected, labeled them as socks of DLDD. Marokwitz then relied on this in his subsequent SPI. In hindsight, Guinsberg is probably an independent sockmaster. Ankh.Morpork 20:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked at the history of how the SPI reports were filed and aggregated, but assuming you are correct, then the reports and the tags on the user pages need to be fixed. I don't suppose you want to connect the dots (links/diffs) on how the reports themselves went awry? I really need to be doing my real life work.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've noted in archive, but not sure what else to do. Some socks will geolocate differenty for a variety of reasons, proxys (both open and closed) being one reason. I don't have the time to sort it all out right now, which is why I just noted it in the archive. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Dennis. I'm not going to do anything further on the clean-up issue. However, if I have to block more puppets (I did one subsequent to opening this conversation), I will not specify that they are a puppet of Dalai lama.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. With IPs, it doesn't matter as long as we can track it back to someone. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Marokwitz (talk) 12:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Your words of support truly mean a lot. ```Buster Seven Talk 00:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • And your enthusiastic support of editor retention, the project and new users means a lot to me as well. You have more than earned my support for a free t-shirt. If they gave you a leather jacket, Nike's and a cool hat, we would still owe you :) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) Added thought: I NEVER support administrative action because of incivility. I support peer pressure; editors on the scene taking care of the act of incivility. Its one of the basic reasons we are civil in real life. It keeps us collaborators working toward a common goal: a social structure that works. No matter how loud those that don't agree scream, here, on the web, we are citizens of WikiPediaWorld. ```Buster Seven Talk 00:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Although we rank the expletives Boomer shouted among our language's top five most offensive words, they're also among the top five most frequently used, according to Timothy Jay, the author of "Cursing in America" and a professor at the Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts." That quote alone is very telling. Oftentimes, making something taboo or illegal only makes it happen more frequently. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

wondering

You wonder about biting newbies? See [5] and [6] But the newbie is the more mature (nicer) than the entrenched editor. See [7] and [8] Seems worse than "incivility" to me but rather just plain mean.

And only a little over 1,600 edits.[9] Is he being encouraged to stay? MathewTownsend (talk) 00:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, yes and no. I read over the discussion, which ended with the newer editor saying "I apologize. I didn’t know featured article maintenance as well as my actions were such a pain in the ass. Dually noted," (sic). They were blunt, to the point, but stayed on topic. It isn't how I would have said it, but I'm not the poster child for civility. Sometimes blunt is effective, as it appears to be here. Actually, the editor has rollback and has been here 6 months, as was noted in that discussion. It appears he was bordering on 3RR without summaries as well. Some might argue that the more established editors could have been more gentle, and I understand that. Other might argue that there is no use pussyfooting around with someone who might be kind of new, but should know better. They caused some of the their own problems, in other words, and FAs can be rough and tumble with ANY of our established editors. In the end, the editor accepts the criticism and seems to have learned from it. I've added a word of encouragement as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • yeah, well Wikipedia:ANI#Malleus_Fatuorum_and_Cornellier this ANI thread and this AN thread - so much for a respectful atmosphere. It's disgusting and only getting worse, making a mockery of wikipedia's editing policies. I can't believe that this foul behavior is not only condoned but actually enabled, by the community. Gratuitous nastiness is rewarded. The established bullies win and are entitled to be unblocked in seconds. This is an incestuous group. The same editors and the same enabling admins. Its ugly and frightening. MathewTownsend (talk) 03:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is frustrating and I don't prefer the harsh methods, but there is the reality that the entire FA process is that way and I can't go in and unilaterally change it. The editor was incorrect in what he was doing. I agree that a more gentle approach is better, that is the method I use, but I can't just go and block for this. Malleus knows that I, and everyone else, wishes he would find less abrasive ways to tell someone they are messing up, but there is only so much I can do, particularly well after the fact. Civility is the big issue that has Wikipedia torn in two in every forum, and there isn't a consensus on how to even define it, no less deal with it. I don't like a lot of things here, but what I can do about it is very limited. The environment around FAs is always going to be a bit rough and tumble. If you have a solution that will cause less drama and problems, I'm all ears. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know you can't do anything about it. Apparently it's hopeless and not even Arbcom can deal with it. It fatally infects wikipedia, not just FA. The latest was over GA but it happens anywhere he engages. I can't understand why a grown man can't refrain from viciously attacking vulnerable others over petty issues, the excuse being protecting "his" work or that of one of his band of followers. Are you saying that he has no self control? Is it a macho thing? That's what it seems like. Will he feel "lesser" if he backs down? How can one person so fatally divide the community? And over his insistence on being allowed to express a foul temper and humiliate others (which his followers think is admirable!) This has been escalating for years, and nothing has been able to prevent it. It is heading toward some kind of ugly showdown. The train is heading down the tracks right at us where we sit spinning our wheels. MathewTownsend (talk) 13:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting copy/paste issue encountered

I've been doing a lot of work on a handful of articles (particularly Fort Dobbs (North Carolina), which relates to the Anglo-Cherokee War article substantially. In the process of creating the Dobbs article, I made a few edits to the pre-existing (and somewhat poorly cited) Anglo-Cherokee article. Whilst doing that, I encountered the following website: [10]. On this site, someone named Gilles C. H. Nullens of Belgium purports to have written a series of books on everything from Native Americans to the Masons. In his book on the native americans, he has what appears to be near-verbatim copies of Wikipedia articles, noticeably the following: Anglo-Cherokee War -- Nullens link 1; Battle of Blue Licks -- Nullens link 2; Battle of Oriskany -- Nullens link 3.

I looked at the revisions, and each seemed to take their current form in short-term, large-scale re-writes. Blue licks was rewritten by Kevin Myers on August 21, 2006 See differences; for Oriskany, it appears to have been set in its current form (and that copied on the Nullens site) on May 7, 2009 by user Magicpiano See differences; and as for the Anglo-Cherokee War, it appears that the article reached a crystalised version of its current state as of May 25, 2009, based on the edits of Natty4bumpo See that article.

My first thought is that this Mr. Nullens is just copying wikipedia articles and presenting them as his own, which I suppose can't be stopped. The variety of editors involved in editing these three articles alone -- especially given the involvement of Kevin Myers, whose edits I think are top-grade -- makes me certain that this is the case, rather than the idea that some cabal is attempting to copyvio the works of an unknown amateur historian from Belgium. Just thought I'd bring it up, though, in case anything can be done to rectify the situation. Thanks! Cdtew (talk) 05:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of sockpuppet archives that may need merging

At Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Historylover4/Archive you mention that Turmerick is the Master. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Turmerick/Archive. Dougweller (talk) 10:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hollisz/Zimmermannh1997, Part 2

Well, looks like there is officially some crossover between the two named accounts and 98.204.145.138. What should I do? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Early greetings for the new year

Best Wishes for a Happy New Year!
May 2013 bring you rewarding experiences and an abundance of everything you most treasure.
Cynwolfe (talk) 16:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Victory, Janus, Chronos, and Gaea (1532–34) by Giulio Romano

Although our interactions have been limited, I appreciate your calm, reasonable approach. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

72.228.190.243

Hi Dennis, Could I ask you to look at recent contributions from this IP address. The contributor is inserting POV into articles, but is also using bad language against those who disagree with him/her (See Talk Page). Would be glad of your opinion. Will be away for a few days from tomorrow. Best regards, David J Johnson (talk) 22:25, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I gave a final warning. Their other contributions seem in good faith, although not impressive. If they continue, I would recommend a block. I think I've been exceedingly generous, but I hate to block for one inappropriate outburst. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis, Unfortunately he has now had a "go" at you. Frankly, I don't think he will listen to reason. Regards,David J Johnson (talk) 22:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've directed him to a couple of essays. I'm not worried what he says about me, he doesn't know me, appears to not understand Wikipedia in the least, so I will allow him a little more rope. Granted, it is probably for naught, but if he gets blocked, I will know I at least tried. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

new editor barnstar

Dennis, do you know of a barnstar that would be fitting for a brand new editor whose work, altho not very extensive, has been spot on? There is a guy that has been editing Idaho articles that is doing a bang up job, and I wanted him to know it has been noticed. Unfortunately, there is no Idaho barnstar. Thanks in advance! Gtwfan52 (talk) 19:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BStudent0

Point is moot as the account has been blocked anyway. ✍ Mtking ✉ 22:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ah, I see. At SPI, the CUs are funny about providing diffs. Often, we will just investigate anyway, but they really want us "clerking" more and digging around from scratch less. I jumped on that case because I'm familiar with the master, but it wasn't obvious enough at first glance that I could just block, which is why I needed diffs. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dennis_Brown&oldid=530451074"