This is an archive of past discussions with User:Dennis Brown. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hello Dennis, Could I please ask you to look at recent additions on the Drake equation page? I have recently reverted comments from 24.90.155.20, as they appear to be POV in both content and style. However, they have been re-inserted without any explanation and it appears that this contributor is starting to edit war. I would be grateful for your view on this? With very best regards, David David J Johnson (talk) 12:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I will indeed, its lucky I have a low cholesterol level. BTW Are you thinking of heading for Hong Kong this summer? It would be interesting to have a discussion on editor retention. ϢereSpielChequers20:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, please. I did mess up on the whole case, I posted it to the wrong place, out of habit. The link to the case is in the email. Thanks. Logical Cowboy (talk) 22:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi, seems like this went quiet. Would it help if I filed a fresh report in the correct place? I did name the wrong sockmaster, so that needs to be corrected. Or is this under way, and should I just wait a while? I did send an email to the CU with more information. Thanks. Logical Cowboy (talk) 22:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
I am going to bed. But take a look and let me know where I went wrong. I don't know that actually did....but seems I have been accused of dramamongering and yet not a mention about Andy being drunk. This all stemming from a discussion on the Sandy Hook talk page. Thanks and feel free to trout if necessary.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
At any rate, there may need to be a checker user done at the very least on the IP and another (or others) showing up. I think I stayed to long at that party. If there is a current SPI investigation that would be of relevance to my opinion on the IP, but I now feel I should not interact with Andy in any shape of form ever. Good luck with the Sandy Hook page. I feel that I cannot collaborate there further. Happy Winter Solstice--Amadscientist (talk) 11:10, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the assesment. This is one of those moments when I feel the community is taking a blind eye for the sake of someone they feel is a net gain even when they drive others away. I disagree that the term shows a bias...I agree I have one. I didn't say it because I was guessing at it. He stated it outright on the ANI but we are supposed to question whether or not he meant it? I don't think it is a good idea to allow editors with such horrible social skills to get away with a claim on AN/I of "Yeah, I'm drunk. I would rather be blocked then change my behavior of name callng" (paraphrased), But as you know I am learning the ropes on the level of acceptance some editors are giving and given. No matter how bad his behavior is....he will always be allowed to stay. This doesn't just disapoint me. This concerns me greatly. But at least it is all in the open and readers and editors alike can judge for themselves how worthy Andy is. Since I was only involved in the discussion and not the actual dispute and was making an attempt to mediate what turned into a one sided name calling fight, I am reconsidering my contributions and time spent in areas that are not worth the work. I have no idea what those areas are but will take some time away from Wiki to determine this. It may simply be best if I stop trying to assist editors for a while. Clearly Andy has issues, his behavior and comments are shocking and disgraceful and no amount of good contributions will ever convince me that he is a worthy editor at the moment. Perhaps one day...but not now. If he is allowed to get away with this, others will begin to do the same and when they are blocked or sanctioned for the same behavior, a special class of editor is created. --Amadscientist (talk) 23:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
I'll check it out. Don't get me wrong. I don't feel like you scolded me. In fact, I come to you as a matter of getting a better perspective. With Andy....I have just become fed up and just can't work with him in any way, but thats about me, not about him.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Since I can't see the diff (props to WK for responding to Shrike's report so quickly), I'll just give out my boilerplate reminder that any threats of violence, no matter how absurd, must be reported to the Foundation per WP:EMERGENCY. I only say this because it's a policy I stumbled on very early on here, and since then have found that a good many longterm contributors are unaware of how broad its scope is. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler)15:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
This was Mikemikev, who is currently teaching EFL in Seoul. The posting was standard for him (cf the blocked ip sock troll who intervened in the ANI thread recently). Mathsci (talk) 23:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
I run into this edit in WP:FFD. I thought I should ask someone about it because to me, it looks like vandalism. Seems to me a user, who is not an admin, has removed an entire discussion because he thinks nominator should relist it as no one cares!
However, there is something that made me ask you: The user in question has been in Wikipedia since 2005 and has over 100,000 edits plus three additional user account rights. Vandalism is uncharacteristic of such a person. Is there something I don't get?
— ΛΧΣ21 is wishing you a MerryChristmas! 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.
Have health, happiness and peace at your home all your life. Thanks for keeping some of us also in peace... :-) E4024 (talk) 11:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
For all you do. We need more Wikipedians like you :)
Sue Rangell✍ ✉ is wishing you a MerryChristmas! 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 Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas5}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Haha, as my beard would have told you, I skipped gray and went STRAIGHT to white. Which reminds me, I owe you a word: I cut it. It had to go. It looked OK, but it didn't feel so good, and Mrs. Drmies apparently thought it would interfere with marital hanky-panky. If you friend me on Facebook you can see the before, during, and after (not of the hanky-panky, of course). But you'll have to find me first--I'm completely incognito. Much respect to all the bearded ones, including Uncle G and Mandarax. BTW, I saw a picture of Kelapstick--he's not a bad-looking fellow. I think we should have a "prettiest Wikipedian" competition. Drmies (talk) 23:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Holy crap...I'm older than Dennis? L...er ahem. =) (but only by a year!) My beard skipped grey as well and went straight to white about 5 years ago!Amadscientist (talk) 02:35, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
From the Puppy
Happy Holidays from the Puppy!
May the coming year lead you to wherever you wish to go.
Well, I'm not as festive (or template-gifted) as some of my fellow Wikipedians who I see have littered your page with various banners, but I still wanted to wish you a Merry Christmas (or whatever Decembertween thing you were referencing a few posts above) and a Happy New Year. GoPhightins!02:48, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Dennis Brown, I hope you have a Merry Christmas and hope your day is full of the true spirit of the day. Plus, good food, good family and good times. :) Have a Great Day! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Spread the joy of Christmas by adding {{subst:User:Neutralhomer/MerryChristmas}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
TBrandley is wishing you a MerryChristmas! 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 Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas5}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
LlamaAl (talk) is wishing you a MerryChristmas! 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 is wishing you a MerryChristmas! 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.
TheGeneralUser(talk) is wishing you a MerryChristmas! 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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.Morpork20:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
No worries, Drmies blocked for 1 month on the IP and increased Hollisz's block to one month as well. Hope the real world doesn't keep you busy long. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I don't want any words with you anymore, Dennis, you give me a headache. But I won't sit here without saying anything (if I can help it), when you once again push words into my mouth and make me responsible for them, that I never said ("abusive [admin]"), and offering me to go somewhere I've already indicated I'd never go under any circumstances (AN/ANI) for anything, ever. It's good however that you admit to placating, in case you didn't know, I'm not the kind of person who apprediates that kind of thing (which is the same as insincerity/disingenuousness in this case, is it not?). You favored Townsend by allowing his stream of PAs to go uncommented by you, calling them "opinions"/"errors". Yet for me, you have no issue whatever making accusation of personal attacks. Your favoritism and bias shows, I'm done with you, please leave me alone with any more of your comments, please. Goodbye. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
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)
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?
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)
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!!!
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)
You've asked me a Q, Dennis, so I'll answer it: No. (You struck something, you clearly didn't take back, but just to placate a request. That's a clear pattern, with Kiefer, and now with me.) Your bias against me, versus Townsend whom you let a litany of personal attacks slide without comment, naming them "opinions" and "[user] errors", but labelling of personal attack here against me, is noted. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
: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.Wolfowitz13:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
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: [6]. 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)
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)
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. MalleusFatuorum
(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 Talk00:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
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 Talk20:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
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 [8] and [9] But the newbie is the more mature (nicer) than the entrenched editor. See [10] and [11] Seems worse than "incivility" to me but rather just plain mean.
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)
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)
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:[13][14]
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)
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. MalleusFatuorum21:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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!?)
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. Basaliskinspect damage⁄berate06:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@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)
@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)
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)
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)
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.])
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
Hello, Dennis Brown. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
I was just being silly; didn't mean to take up your time, I thought you'd have noticed and known what I was talking about. It appears I beat you to the McGlork (or whatever it was) reblock by mere seconds. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I had a cognitive chuckle, but didn't want to interrupt such a deep conversation that involves deals on socks (Dennis, do you do all colors of socks, btw?) GoPhightins!03:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
If I may turn serious for a moment, however... Is it worth opening another SPI for Hackneyhound and User:Make mine a tripe? I've blocked indef, since if he isn't Hackneyhound he's some other trolling sock, but is it worth the SPI? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Haven't gotten anything Dennis. If you sent something it may have been unable to get through due to the overload on my email. I cleaned out a ton of stuff so it should work OK now.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
McGurk Johnny
Thanks. That, as (ironically enough) the user speculated, was exactly why I put this on hold. As one of the regular unblock-request reviewers, I think I speak for most of us when I say that I do prefer that when someone is blocked for sockpuppetry without an SPI or even sockmaster identified, that it is difficult to properly review the block in the event of an unblock request. Which, as we see, does happen. (Vent mode off; hope you don't feel implicated since this is just a general complaint of mine). Daniel Case (talk) 04:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Recommendation for good medical article to use as a model
Dennis, stalkers:
Due to some unfortunate family circumstances I found myself reading everything I could find on percutaneous vertebroplasty a few nights ago. I added the best reference I found to the article and tucked it away on my watchlist to come back to later. A new editor came through shortly afterwards and, although the formatting was a wreck, he appeared to know what he was talking about. I engaged him, and he turns out to be an expert in this area (although definitely not in wikipedia editing). We're talking by email.
Rather than hand him a stack of policy pages to read I think it would be much more efficient to show him an exemplary medical article and say "Do it this way" (filling in policy as needed). What would you suggest for a unusually good article on a medical procedure that has a fair bit of actual controversy surrounding it? (By actual controversy I mean that there are very solid – and conflicting – secondary sources.)
Also, if you know of someone who works on medical articles and doesn't have enough to do already I could probably use another set of eyes on this.
Ketogenic diet recently went FA and was developed by the highly-respected User:Colin. I asked a similar question and that was the response I got. Adding: Sadly at this time there are no FA-quality or even GA-quality articles on surgical procedures, although I am trying to fix that! :) Zad6816:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
MastCell is sporadically involved, and Colin is quite busy ... really, the best thing to do is AnthonyCole's advice ... post a request to WT:MED. And show the new editor two pages: WP:MEDRS (on sourcing requirements for medical articles, particularly since non-wikipedians have a tendency to do original research and use primary studies and case reports rather than secondary reviews) and WP:MEDMOS (particularly the sections on what sort of encyclopedic language we use and how medical articles are organized). Also, this Dispatch will help, and should be required reading for anyone editing medical articles: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for all the great advice and recommendations—that's exactly what I was looking for. And yes, Dennis, you do have the most helpful stalkers in all of wikipedia. GaramondLethe01:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Legitimate claim to an account
Hi. You wrote "... there is no way the former account holder has a legitimate claim to the name." As I sit here and read this, I wonder how your claim to the account "Dennis Brown" is any different than this (former) user's claim to the account "Griot". There is most certainly a legitimate claim to the name, isn't there? The user is presumably able to authenticate it using his or her password, which is all we require around here, for me or for you or for anyone. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
I imagine some users might fear losing their preferred account name with many thousands of edits. That's what completely unified login entails, you realize? With respect, in my discussions with Oliver and others at BN, it's become increasingly clear that nearly everyone involved in these tech chats is completely clueless. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
.jpg)
