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 Dennis Brown (talk | contribs) at 23:44, 1 January 2013 (→Apology: new section). 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
No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

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 Rude comments hatted. Is that better?
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]

:This was a rather long discussion with strange meanderings.

Thanks for the just words, Dennis. Let's forget about the unjust words .
For the record, Boing has acknowledged misreading what I repeatedly wrote, and he has struck many of comments. I have acknowledged his good faith, and stated my wish that I had not written "little man", etc.
Perhaps the heat of the discussion arose because we both take due process and good names seriously and we also share a serious commitment to protecting persons with concerns about alleged sexual harassment?
TParis's excision of the discussion prevented me from striking more of my comments from AN/I, but I did strike several on my page. Boing has been welcomed to post whenever he wants on my talk page, of course.
For comparison, I had quoted Boing's discussion of Sven, which had three variations on "lie" in one edit, without calling Sven a liar. I also quoted or gave diffs of various personal attacks on myself, which resulted in no blocks or administrative warnings. Scott MacDonald's rabid attack has still not resulted in a retraction or a warning, but has received endorsements from blocking heads at ANI, who never miss an opportunity for viciousness. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was trying to keep an arm's length away so I could consider an unblock, but I chose my words poorly, so that it could be taken more than one way. I really did mean it in a very general way, but completely understand how it could be taken as specific. That was just a failure of communication on my part, so I bowed out as to not make the situation worse. I really am sorry about that. I hope you know that I have a good opinion of you, I just failed miserably in my verbiage that day. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:11, 31 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]
A Peace Officers peace can not be disturbed. A citizen needs to make a complaint. At least that's how it is in my neck of the woods. Also consider that, sometimes, the simple harmless swear word carries alot of venom and anger behind it making it neither simple nor harmless. ```Buster Seven Talk 20:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

wondering

WP:DENY Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 0:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I think everyone has had ample opportunity to express their opinion on my talk page at this point. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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]
        • I agree that a showdown is on the horizon. I took the day off, spent it with some friends, came back and saw several people blocked then unblocked, including Malleus. I have thought about the whole civility issue a great deal, and have to admit, I have no clue how to solve the problem here. It isn't just Malleus, although a lot of people do hold him up as the poster child. I've actually worked on one article intensely with Malleus and found him very easy to get along with and extremely helpful. Most people actually get along with him fine, and the majority of the time his edits are extremely worthwhile. I've also seen times where I think he got the shaft and things were taken out of proportion. And yes, I've seen several times when I just facepalm and wish he had not said what said, and told him so. As for spinning wheels, I wish I could argue against that, but I can't. I tend to be pretty tolerant of occasional rudeness from everyone, I expect a degree of it and think we have to be careful to not try to overpolice civility, which is as bad as what we have now. I think we sometimes do block other editors too quickly over simple spats that would solve themselves if you just mediate a little, and that also costs us editors. Adults bump heads sometimes, you have to allow for some of that, I think, as long as it doesn't drag into the isles. As an admin, it is a very hard line to draw because of the diversity of opinions and culture here, so I tend to default to the more tolerant side. But like I said, I just don't have the answers and the community as a whole certainly doesn't either, so try to patch things up where I can with people that get the dirty end of the civility stick. I'm sure it sounds a bit lame, but I just honestly don't know what else to do in the current environment. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Malleus is the major problem because of his viciousness, the quickness with which he strikes his victims, his gratuitousness bullying, especially of those he perceives as "lower" in standing, the obvious pleasure he takes in victimizing others, his vested posse of protectors, etc. Yes, these are other rude editors, but he is their role model and sets the tone, and they don't have the manipulative skills, the maliciousness, the number of protectors and sycophants he has. He's a macho bully. This has been escalating for years. I've never seen him get the shaft. If it seems that way, it's usually built up frustration from those that have long observed (or randomly been the victim of) his meanness and bullying, his gross insensitivity to others. His behavior is far worse than "incivility". And new editors notice, are disgusted and frustrated, and leave. Like AutomaticStrikeout, the kind of new editor that could mean a positive future for wikipedia:[10][11]

            Yes, Malleus is wonderful if he perceives you as "on his side", and then is smoothly charming and agreeable, but make a stupid error (if you're not one of the "in group") and you'll be sliced, diced and maliciously attacked (especially if you're a nobody) all out of proportion to your unintended error, and no one there at the time, witnessing it, will reproach him. I think this behavior stems from a bizarre form of mafia "ownership" of certain areas of wikipedia. (My knees are going to get broken for this.) MathewTownsend (talk) 20:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

            I'll be interested to see how you try to justify that as being anything other than one of these personal attack thingies Matthew, as it's a complete pack of lies. Malleus Fatuorum 21:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            I don't know about Dennis, but I for one can see absolutely nothing good coming if this conversation continues. Let's give it a rest, shall we? The end of the year has seen enough stupid drama, let's let it die in relative peace. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            I agree, nothing good is coming from this conservation, it is users just "biting" each other at this point with personal attacks. Let's enjoy the holiday season and relax. TBrandley (what's up) 21:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Malleus is half Sicilian didn't you know?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Agreement has been reached. Admins are not all-powerful and cannot solve the world's problems, especially not by committee. Opinions on civility and what constitutes a PA will continue to differ. Dennis Brown is admonished to not refer to Mrs. Brown as "a sack" ("hit the sack before midnight"), everyone else is admonished to load up on carbs tonight. Tomorrow is another day. Happy new year. Drmies (talk)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dennis, you're an Administrator, right? And in dialogue with MathewTownsend above, he unleashes a string of personal attacks on Malleus, and, you don't even issue so much as a caution, let alone admonishment or warning about it, instead characterizing the series of PAs as "opinions". Amazing! (How do you find consistency in that, just curious? "Because he's Malleus, PAs against him can be overlooked?" And the hypocrisy of someone complaining about incivility of a user, via a series of PAs! Again, amazing.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • If I thought saying or doing something would have helped, I would have, but sometimes the best solution is to archive and just stop the discussion, which stops the incivility. This is based not on my experience as an admin, but from years of being a mediator. I use this method regularly. It did stop the arguing, after all, which was my goal. As for it being inconsistent with other admin, I am not responsible for their actions, only my own. If anything, I believe this method needs to be used more often, not less, in these isolated discussions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 04:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dennis, I believe you had a duty as an Admin, to confront the PAs that were being spouted, at a minimum to name them PAs, and caution Townsend from continuing in that vein. You chose not to. Regardless what you did as a mediator in RL, your obligation as Admin on Wikipedia calls you to at least caution a user streaming a series of PAs against another user, right in front of you. If you "use that method" of ignoring PAs on WP, then I'd say that is shirking your role as Admin here, or, playing favorites (admonishing and warning others, except those you don't feel like). I can't believe what you are saying above, perhaps I'm not understanding. (You're advocating, that instead of calling a stop to PAs on another user you're direct witness to, that Admins are best to ignore them?) Wow I dunno ... I still think you failed your obligation as WP Admin, by that. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC) p.s. At least you didn't deny they were PAs. (But, neither did you acknowledge, that they were. And you wonder why I often ask for you to pin down on which side of fence you are!?)[reply]
IHTS, Wikipedia is a voluntary project; no one here has an obligation to do anything. Give Dennis a break, he can chat with who he pleases on his talk page without acting like the thought police if that's what he wants. If being an admin means I'm not allowed to talk with anyone without pointing out their deficiencies then I'll resign tomorrow, and I imagine I'll take most of the admin corps with me. If you're so concerned take it to a noticeboard (note, that was a joke. Please don't take it to a noticeboard, for God's sake...). And also, why does anyone have to be on a particular "side of the fence" in this fiasco? Honestly there's a whole world out there, this issue is so minor I literally can't believe how involved everyone has gotten, and talking about the issue like it's a major international conflict doesn't help anything. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 06:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing reply. You remind me it's a volunteer project. I happened to know that already. You instruct me that Dennis can chat with "who he pleases". I never suggested he limit who he chats with, thanks for implying I did when I didn't. I didn't ask Dennis to "point out deficiencies" of the editor, rather to caution him about the PSs he was spewing. "Thought police" isn't involved here at all, since the PAs were black & white text in Dennis's face. You're also amiss thinking I'd ever go to a noticeboard about anything ever here ... I do not have any faith in the DR noticeboards, IMO they are cesspools of irresponsibility. I disagree that no responsibility expectations exist for Admins, when they witness point-blank in dialogue with a user, a stream of PAs being made of another user. Do you have any additional twisted arguments to waste my time with, Basalisk? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re your complaint re "side of the fence". That was limited to Dennis's lack of either denial or acknowledgement in his response to my question why he didn't caution Townsend for making the litany of PAs, whether they were even PAs in Dennis's opinion, or not. (It was not about any generalized "fiasco", or whatever you are referring to.) Do you have any other manipulative, muddying comments for my attention? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, that's very impressive: one Administrator in conversation with a user who's making a litany of PAs against another user, says nothing, and later characterizes the PAs as "opinions", and explains that he felt it best to just ignore the PAs (without explicitly acknowleging they were PAs). Then another Administrator comes in to back him up on choosing to ignore the PAs without comment, on the basis that WP editors are volunteers, and Administrators have no expectation or responsibility to comment in such a situation. Then chastising a user for calling question to why the litany of PAs were allowed to escape even a word of caution from the Admin. Very impressive indeed. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh God. The fact you stepped in here, Basalisk, couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that you have been an Admin only since November 23, 2012, and that User:Dennis Brown nominated you at your RfA, could it now?? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see the relevance of that to this discussion.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 07:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let's end this pointless discussion now. Basalisk (talk · contribs) makes a great administrator and both Dennis Brown (talk · contribs) and Basalisk deserve a break, this is just "biting" each other with uncivil-like comments at this point and nothing appears to be in process of being addressed. Let's enjoy the new year and relax. TBrandley (what's up) 07:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@TBrandley, I don't know how "pointless" it is, when it deals with intentional oversight of presumably what is Admin responsibility. I don't judge others and try to stick to the facts (written record). If Basalisk decided to make comments, that was his choice, no one forced him and he only is responsible for their quality. "Nothing appears to be in process of being addressed" I agree, but didn't come here to get anything "addressed" (I had a Q and then some replies and comments).
I see by your User you've been here ~1 yr. and: "This user is not a Wikipedia administrator, but would like to be one someday." (Not not surprising then, you would be careful not to make any comment even remotely unsupportive of another Admin, since Admins seldom "break rank", do they?) This thread would have been 10 times shorter had Dennis responded "Yeah, I probably shoulda said somethin' about that", but that didn't happen, instead I've been wading thru followup comments by his protege, and then reprimanded by an Admin wannabe. (No insult, just fact.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Ihardlythinkso: Glad to see that you're scrupulous about your spelling and punctuation as you malign other editors and slap them down. Being pedantic mixed with being entirely clueless - with a soupçon of righteousness and just a touch of arrogance - is always an interesting combination. My advice is, stick to chess, that's pretty much your speed, you don't really seem to have a good handle on this thing called human behavior (one of the more complex subjects we know of). Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh gosh, thanks for your viscious personal attacks. And over-the-top accusations. It's so pleasant here, returning any criticism, with that kind of nasty viciousness. (Have balance, much? And you think your demonstration here shows you to be a superior example of civility? Really?) Hostile. Nasty! Wonderful. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is this December 27 edit summary of yours to an IP user an example of your superiority in the "human behavior" department?: you are a simple-minded and ignorant person Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ken, didn't you write this (found it on one of your subpages): "[...] the people who hang out at AN/I are, by and large, admins or their friends and hangers-on, and it's almost inevitable that, either consciously or without being at all aware of it, they are going to be biased in favor of other admins. When a civilian brings a complaint about an admin, there is a distinct tendency to reject it out of hand as sour grapes or a deliberate attack, and, to a large extent, the wagons get circled." Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ya know Ken, ya got a lot of opinions, and some of it is down-right scary reading (I must say). But I agree with a *lot* of it. Just a casual observation: you're aware, right?, that most of what you write there is seeped in overwhelming superior attitude? (It's true. That would make it difficult to read for some, but know what? Not me. Because I'm genuinely interested in ideas. You do have some inconsistencies/contradictions going on there too, but, that is expected, given just how many ideas you have going there, which is considerable. I can see you put a lot of thought and emotion into the WP. I want to compliment you on that! [Cause I like to give credit where credit is due. Not only critique.]) I've bookmarked your page for further reading -- it is interesting. Again, thanks for your work there ... I think WP needs more thinkers/change. But I see also you have given up on change there, concluding WP is happy w/ itself despite its dysfunctionality. That's depressing, but might very well be true. The fact you put so much into expressing ideas for a better way, shows u to be an idealist. (I think that's good.) Good New Year's to you. Sincerely, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC) p.s. I see you got the beginnings of an extensive blocklog, including an indef block in your history. (That's good. 'Cause I don't think I trust anyone w/ a clean blocklog, any longer! [It shows they're not really trying, or something.])[reply]
To make it perfectly clear: As an admin, I am not obligated to act on ANYTHING. Any other admin could have come in and said something if they wished. I'm pretty sure plenty of other admin watch this page, and none felt compelled. Admin aren't police, and it isn't our job to point out every error of every person. Like Basalisk, I would hand in my bit if that were the requirement. You could have asked any admin to review it, or taken it to the boards (yes, bad idea), but I'm not obligated to deal with problems the way that you or anyone else wants me to, as I'm bound only by policy. I overlook a great many things in the interest of keeping the peace, including my asking you twice to stay off my talk page until 2013. I make no apology for bending in the wind when it comes to minor things. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK Dennis, I'll believe you (without researching it). (But please don't water-down Townsend's series of personal attacks against Malleus by calling them an editor's "error". What caused me to Q you on why you didn't say anything, is that it did not seem right at all, not fair to Malleus or any user for that matter, to not advise someone spewing such a litany, that it isn't acceptable. You chose not to say anything in the dialogue w/ Townsend, it was your discretion to make that choice, ok, I stand corrected, I didn't know that. And you already explained why you didn't choose to say anything, but again I didn't agree with the watering-down, naming the PAs "opinions". But that is your discretion too. The whole deal is, I don't think any editor s/ have to face that kind of litany, it's abusive, and it was sad to see the only one who spoke up about it was Malleus, for I don't think he or any user in that position s/ have to, with an Admin right there. [It isn't the choice I would have made if I were Admin, obviously. I would have at least said something. I'm a little confused to understand the benefit of allowing such a litany without comment. It's pure abusivenss. But that's me I guess.])
Have a Happy New Years, thank you for answering, and thank you for letting me borrow your Userspace in unplanned fashion in meeting User:Beyond My Ken, surely an interesting and provocative character and thinker. (WP needs more ass-kicking content builders, like him, in order to improve & evolve more quickly, or at all.) Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Happy New Year to you as well. I have big plans: Stay at home with Mrs. Brown, drink some cocoa, and hit the sack before midnight. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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: [12]. 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]

Earth100/101

Dennis, couldn't a CU be done to check whether the two accounts are related? Not saying whether it should or shouldn't be done, just asking whether it's feasible.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've already tried to ping a CU twice to see if they were interested. The argument about 1600 hours is incorrect, they edit roughly around that time on the weekends some. Someone could file at SPI and request CU if they wanted. That CU can't prove disprove, particularly if one is on a proxy, open or otherwise. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My Hogmanay message

I've been rather astonished by the events of the last few days, but they've made it very clear to me that Malleus carries too much baggage to be anything other than a drama magnet. I don't think that's right, but I'm only one person, I can't change anything. Perhaps I'll edit from one of my alleged admin accounts if I decide to contribute here again.

I actually think that I'm very easy to work with, unless you go out of your way to piss me off of course, and if you do you'll get both barrels, admittedly. Anyway, I'm sorry I won't be able to offer any more help with your 1950s American automoble culture article, but I'm sure you understand. Just one final piece of advice; try to remember that the article is about culture, not the 1950s automobile industry, and good luck at GA/FA. Malleus Fatuorum

  • It is unfortunate but I understand, as we both knew this day was coming. I wish I knew a solution that would satisfy both "sides". While I've tried, it is well beyond my capability to resolve. Thank you for taking the time to help me with the article, it truly made a difference for both the reader and me personally. I learned a tremendous number of things; more in two months than the previous two years combined. And yes, I had to look up "Hogmanay", so even on your way out, you taught me something. Whatever you do next, I hope you find peace and purpose, friend. You deserve that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Recommended reading in the context: User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 122#Continued: civility and team spirit, bottom line: civility is not spoken but lived. You two do that, keep it up, the best for 2013! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hollisz Update

Hey Dennis, hope all is well. With User:Drmies‎ on a Wikibreak, I may have to lean on you for blocks or whatever when it comes to the Zimmermanh1997/Hollisz/98.204.145.138 situation. I kinda hate to do so, since you are insanely busy, but you are the only one (besides Drmies) that knows this whole case. Just wanted to keep you in the loop. Hope you have a good day and a Happy 2013! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Murthy

Dennis, just a heads up that I restored the topic ban thread from the archive at WP:AN. Another editor nudged me about this on my talk page. I've been much less active since the unfortunate events of a couple of days ago. It feels like slogging through mud, and I have to force myself to do anything at all. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2013

File:Happy New Year 2013.jpg Have an enjoyable New Year!
Hello Dennis Brown: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Northamerica1000(talk) 15:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brains Work Better barnstar

The 'Brains Work Better in A Community' Award
Thank you for all your efforts to befriend and assist your fellow Wikipedian Editors (WE). WE are a community and the more WE allow attack tactics, the more WE become imprisoned by the result. Sometimes WE need a reminder that WE are all human and entitled to respect. What's so bad about Peace, Love and Understanding? ```Buster Seven Talk 18:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
👍 Like Go Phightins! 18:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos

The eggnog of good citizenship award
For being unfailingly kind and consistently helpful, for taking WP:AGF to heart in all you do, and because barnstars are just so 2012, you are hereby awarded this partially-filled glass of eggnog. (Hurry and drink it before it spoils.) Hope your busy new year is a happy one for you, on and off the wiki. Rivertorch (talk) 21:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

YellowPegasus

Hello,

I was wondering, shouldn't YellowPegasus (talk · contribs) be sporting a 

{{sockpuppet|1=PIPony22|2=confirmed}}

as AnnaHendren (talk · contribs) does? (Not urgent, since YellowPegasus is already indefblocked)

-- 70.24.248.246 (talk) 23:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BigzMMA

Happy New Year !!!
Who should I nudge to get this resolved ? ✍ Mtking ✉ 23:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wonder Woman and WonderBoy

If you think it appropriate, would you mind mentioning the circumstances around your checkuser block of WeirdWoman123 as a sock of WonderBoy98? I'm not questioning your decision — rather, I'm confused why you'd indef-block a user as a sock without blocking the sockmaster. Please see the "Wonder Woman/GA2" section of my talk page and the "Wonder Woman" section of User talk:Aircorn if you care about why I'm asking: someone wants to G4 speedy a page that WonderBoy created, and I'm very much unsure how to handle the situation. Nyttend (talk) 14:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Feel free to revert any edits by WeirdWoman or delete any page, CU (DoRD) was very clear on the connection. I've emailed WonderBoy and trying to offer them an opportunity to not get blocked and instead get a little mentoring, but I haven't received a reply. If I don't get a reply soon, I will file a SPI report to hang the CU results and they will be blocked for a short period as the sockmaster. It is unusual to do this, but I'm hoping it might be more effective at preventing future socks in this one circumstance. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:47, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • SPI clerk, but not a CU. Someone dropped me this case via email, I pinged the CU DoRD on IRC and got the result. It isn't typical but the emailer thinks the editor is very young, so I just wanted to try the more gentle approach. Most cases do hit the SPI pages, but a few like this get handled off venue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Dennis Brown. You have new messages at Talk:1950s American automobile culture/GA1.
Message added 18:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TBrandley (what's up) 18:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick action

On the Pete K IP use issue. hgilbert (talk) 18:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

I had a brain fart, and apologized here: [14] Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:44, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dennis_Brown&oldid=530831856"