User talk:Dennis Brown

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by .

NOTICE - I'm going to away more than I'm here for the next few months. I'm not likely to get involved with long, drawn out issues. I will probably do little edits here and there, but any complicated issues should probably go elsewhere. Dennis Brown - 2¢

Hope all is well

Hello Dennis,

Hope all is well with you and your family. It feels good to be back to where I belong. I've had a great learning experience from you and several other people who I'm thankful for. I look forward to working with you again in the future. Best. TheGeneralUser (talk) 00:26, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TTAAC

Hello Dennis. FYI there's been another 1RR violation by this user shortly after you closed the AE thread with yet another "last warning" to that user: [1] [2]. SPECIFICO talk 02:24, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why should some random former employee of the government's opinion be in a BLP? The rules shouldn't slip because Donald Trump is a Conservative.--v/r - T P 02:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TP, this is not about content, it's about conduct and competence. It's about all the editors who don't even go to speak up at AE because disruptive editors such as TTAAC have driven them off of articles that Arbcom recognized need special protection. I don't understand why Admins are so reluctant to enforce Arbcom discretionary sanctions and then even when a formal case is filed they second-guess whether the sanctions are really necessary. SPECIFICO talk 02:42, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was **definitely** about conduct. It's about editors using Wikipedia for political reasons and using AE to game it. It's about editors, like me, who have been driven off articles because of the double standard applied to BLPs of conservatives. I do not see a single "former [government] employee said..." on HRC's article. Not a single one. There are many former FBI investigators who have made comments and none of them are in her article. If everyone was treating his BLP exactly like they'd treat hers, then there wouldn't be any conflict.--v/r - T P 02:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, TP, I don't think that the concern you've just expressed relates to the enforcement of sanctions wrt the amply documented and longstanding misconduct of the editor in question. At any rate, we shouldn't camp out on Dennis' talk page for a discussion of the general editing environment. Feel free to visit me on my talk any time you are so inclined. SPECIFICO talk 03:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No violation. I removed the contentious text one time; the two diffs cited by SPECIFICO are unrelated. (I should also reiterate that the AE report did not allege I had violated 1RR—because I didn't—but rather the additional stipulation "You ... must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus.")TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. If you don't know how reverts work... SPECIFICO talk 03:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An edit is not a revert; we are allowed to make more than one edit within a 24 hour period without being instantly reported to admins or drama boards. I doubt any neutral observer will agree with SPECIFICO's characterization of this edit—in which I trimmed and revised the text with no change to the meaning of the paragraphs, for example by replacing "Trump mocked the report as fabricated" with "Trump's transition team dismissed the allegations, remarking: 'These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction'," and added material on the FBI's dissent (which Volunteer Marek partially reverted)—as a "revert" of any kind. Nor is the first part of this edit—in which I move a sentence to a different part of the same section to improve readability—a "revert." Only my blanket removal of all text pertaining to retired CIA officer Glenn Carle constitutes a revert—and I only made it once. Obviously, Dennis Brown is more than competent to review the diffs to for himself see if SPECIFICO's representation of them is accurate; I would remind SPECIFICO, however, that she has been admonished in the past for her "misguided...at best" portrayal of my edits and edit summaries (and for requesting "retaliatory and unwarranted" sanctions against me), and should be careful not to get in the pattern of filing frivolous complaints against other users.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's two diffs, and two different texts, but it's also two different reverts, as TTAAC knows very well. And [3] this edit is particularly problematic because, as has been pointed out, it misrepresents the source. The text inserted by TTAAC claims that " The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) did not support CIA's assessment". That is NOT what the source says. What the source actually says is "The FBI is not sold on the idea that Russia had a particular aim in its meddling". In other words, the source says that while both the FBI and CIA agree that Russia meddled with the election, the FBI is not convinced about what the goal of that meddling was. TTAAC's edit purposefully tries to make it seem like the FBI is disputing that Russia meddled with the election at all. If this hadn't been brought up [4], then maybe it could be attributed to just sloppy rendering of the source, but the edit was made after it had been brought to the talk page (also this comment by TTAAC on another user's talk page indicates that they were aware of the issue). They have also tried to skew it in this way in other articles. Combined with the evidence already presented at WP:AE this is a pretty clear indication that the purpose here is just plain ol' POV pushing (and I get really irked when this is done by misrepresenting sources since that's basically a form of lying and if this was a scholarly community it'd be cracked down on hard).Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The text inserted by TTAAC claims that 'The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) did not support CIA's assessment'." @Volunteer Marek: has me confused with another user. I did not add the text in question—as the very diff he cited shows, I simply moved it, which is not a "revert." If I had added that text after Volunteer Marek deleted my moderate, well-sourced, and neutral version ("an earlier October 31 The New York Times report on a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) probe into alleged ties between Trump and Russia ... [was] said to have determined 'even the hacking into Democratic emails ... was aimed at disrupting the presidential election rather than electing Mr. Trump'.") by falsely claiming it was OR (check the source for yourself), then I would be at two reverts. To reiterate, however, the heavy-handed and inaccurate version was added by MyMoloboaccount—and as a consequence of Volunteer Marek deleting my version, which actually made very clear that the dispute was limited to Russia's motivation. (With this latest revert, we're now back to approximately the same thing I had in mind.) So, no, I won't be accepting responsibility for MyMoloboaccount's revert.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, you moved it, rather than inserted it (that was MMA). My apologies, I withdraw my comment.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Volunteer Marek, TheTimesAreAChanging, and SPECIFICO: Great, now that this is cleared up, can we PLEASE take this as a learning opportunity? This is evidence of the goggles that politics puts on us all. Can we please remember that we're Wikipedians first? Because I'm losing faith and I need this one guys (and gals).--v/r - T P 23:24, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello gentlemen. I see everything is squared away. That is good. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]