Dennis Brown, admin-about-town

[Randy from Boise]

Split from 'Shorter Sumana' topic - Zoloft

Really I question whether just the act of characterizing certain participants as "assholes" doing "bullshit" and excluding them, that that is the act of the true asshole, but really it is not useful for people to think in these terms. Communities need policy and evidence-based processes with a reviewable record if they are going to go and exclude people. Otherwise the real jerks like Dennis Brown and Beeblebrox and Floquenbeam and Bwilkins gravitate to positions of authority and bully people like mad.

Dennis Brown is one of the best administrators at WP. He is an anti-cabalist, not a cabalist. You are confused.

RfB

[Triptych]

Really I question whether just the act of characterizing certain participants as "assholes" doing "bullshit" and excluding them, that that is the act of the true asshole, but really it is not useful for people to think in these terms. Communities need policy and evidence-based processes with a reviewable record if they are going to go and exclude people. Otherwise the real jerks like Dennis Brown and Beeblebrox and Floquenbeam and Bwilkins gravitate to positions of authority and bully people like mad.

Dennis Brown is one of the best administrators at WP. He is an anti-cabalist, not a cabalist. You are confused.

I say I know him better than you, and I at least provided an explanation a couple posts above for my opinion. He is among the most heinous and most damaging and most bullying of administrators, and he's made the worse by the fact that he fronts like some Solomonic wiseman. There may be some things I'm confused about, not this.

[Randy from Boise]

Really I question whether just the act of characterizing certain participants as "assholes" doing "bullshit" and excluding them, that that is the act of the true asshole, but really it is not useful for people to think in these terms. Communities need policy and evidence-based processes with a reviewable record if they are going to go and exclude people. Otherwise the real jerks like Dennis Brown and Beeblebrox and Floquenbeam and Bwilkins gravitate to positions of authority and bully people like mad.

Dennis Brown is one of the best administrators at WP. He is an anti-cabalist, not a cabalist. You are confused.

I say I know him better than you, and I at least provided an explanation a couple posts above for my opinion. He is among the most heinous and most damaging and most bullying of administrators, and he's made the worse by the fact that he fronts like some Solomonic wiseman. There may be some things I'm confused about, not this.

And I make my assertion based on off-wiki communication during my RFA (he was my nominator). I will post nothing and stand by everything.

RfB

[EricBarbour]

Just yesterday I noticed at Jimbo's talkpage Dennis Brown and a crew of four other thugs from WP:AN/ANI hounding some English-as-second-language speaker on made-up civility infringement against Dennis, in which the victim was actually in the right (the article on this guy Brat that just defeated House majority leader Cantor in the Republican primary; the editors including Dennis were spinning it to portray Brat as Jesus-freak looney that claimed God physically possessed the voters so he would be victorious). So to plug that into Sumana's thesis, the guy being hounded, threatened with blockage and reversions, absurdly trumped-up and made-up criticism, is the asshole that needs to be excluded. I see it the other way around: Dennis Brown and his administrative thugs ganging up on the newbie are the assholes. They're scaring him with threats, hurting his feelings if he hasn't recognized them for what they are, discouraging what could be a fine editor and pushing him toward Wikipedia exit, and they don't give a darn.

Do us all a favor: start a new thread about this incident, and post your evidence there. You would help your case immensely.

[Midsize Jake]

Do us all a favor: start a new thread about this incident, and post your evidence there. You would help your case immensely.

He might not be doing us such a favor, though. Eric Cantor was, quite literally, the only Jewish Republican in Congress, and with him out of there, the number of Jewish Republicans in Congress will now be zero. The Republicans are afraid that Brat's "God guided the hand of the voters!" comment will be treated as anti-Jewish, especially since the Democrats are probably quite enthusiastic about having it treated as exactly that. This incident on WP involving User:NK (T-C-L) (and the subsequent Jimbo talk page dispute, which has now been blanked by Dennis Brown) might only be the beginning.

It's early days yet and the media might be laying off for various reasons, at least for now. But if the story takes off and we're seen as taking Brat's side in the dispute, even if the dispute itself is a classic example of why Wikipedia shouldn't be allowed to actively insert itself into contemporary politics, well... let's just say it probably won't help our overall popularity much.

[Triptych]

Do us all a favor: start a new thread about this incident, and post your evidence there. You would help your case immensely.

He might not be doing us such a favor, though. Eric Cantor was, quite literally, the only Jewish Republican in Congress, and with him out of there, the number of Jewish Republicans in Congress will now be zero. The Republicans are afraid that Brat's "God guided the hand of the voters!" comment will be treated as anti-Jewish, especially since the Democrats are probably quite enthusiastic about having it treated as exactly that. This incident on WP involving User:NK (T-C-L) (and the subsequent Jimbo talk page dispute, which has now been blanked by Dennis Brown) might only be the beginning.

It's early days yet and the media might be laying off for various reasons, at least for now. But if the story takes off and we're seen as taking Brat's side in the dispute, even if the dispute itself is a classic example of why Wikipedia shouldn't be allowed to actively insert itself into contemporary politics, well... let's just say it probably won't help our overall popularity much.

Yah, those are the main links in question for the user-abusive antics of Dennis Brown and his WP:AN/ANI henchmen. Newish editor "NazariyKaminski" was participating constructively in the discussion about Dave Brat. He innocuously critiques Dennis' excruciating assertion that Mr. Brat "credits God with actual intervention" in the primary as if Brat believes it were as God parting the Red Sea for Moses and the Hebrews to escape the Egyptian army. He asks Dennis if the Brat article is going to have to specifically quote in the article each time Brat thanks God in a public setting. At this point Dennis is irritated and so he and then his thugs begin setting up Nazariy with all the usually jargon and consciously loaded language to facilitate a block: WP:POINT, WP:DISRUPT, "creating drama," not WP:AGF, "hostile," "badgering," "tendentious editing" (WP:TE), WP:BATTLEGROUND, and so forth. Dennis explicitly threatens to "drag [Nazariy] to ANI" in there somewhere. Nazariy is the newbie, these guys are the experienced ANI bullies deriving petty enjoyment with each block they engineer.

When Nazariy opens a thread at Jimbo's talkpage to say "what the heck," one of Dennis' administrative thugs Sphilbrick actually threatens to apply WP:BOOMERANG to him. That's the one used at WP:AN/ANI to block the person that submits the complaint. Sphilbrick remarkably wants to apply it for comments made at Jimbo's talkpage where Jimbo says he has an open door policy.

I'm not prepared to footnote this stuff with precise hyperlinks here and there, Eric, it gets difficult especially with all the reverts here and there where you have to sort it out from the history. An IP took the side of Nazariy in there somewhere and was reverted and blocked. It's there though for anyone who's done this before to sort out the diffs and do his or here own appraisal.

For record: the ANI thugs who quickly were all over Nazariy were Robert McClenon, Dave Dial, Tenofalltrades, John Carter, Mark Miller, Cyclopia, Sphilbrick, and of course WP:AN/ANI Grandmaster Dennis Brown himself. Each piling on and bullying the newbie, each behaving like a cheap lowlife. They are sickening and it's a sickening system that enables them.

[Randy from Boise]

Yah, those are the main links in question for the user-abusive antics of Dennis Brown and his WP:AN/ANI henchmen. Newish editor "NazariyKaminski" was participating constructively in the discussion about Dave Brat. He innocuously critiques Dennis' excruciating assertion that Mr. Brat "credits God with actual intervention" in the primary as if Brat believes it were as God parting the Red Sea for Moses and the Hebrews to escape the Egyptian army. He asks Dennis if the Brat article is going to have to specifically quote in the article each time Brat thanks God in a public setting. At this point Dennis is irritated and so he and then his thugs begin setting up Nazariy with all the usually jargon and consciously loaded language to facilitate a block: WP:POINT, WP:DISRUPT, "creating drama," not WP:AGF, "hostile," "badgering," "tendentious editing" (WP:TE), WP:BATTLEGROUND, and so forth. Dennis explicitly threatens to "drag [Nazariy] to ANI" in there somewhere. Nazariy is the newbie, these guys are the experienced ANI bullies deriving petty enjoyment with each block they engineer.

When Nazariy opens a thread at Jimbo's talkpage to say "what the heck," one of Dennis' administrative thugs Sphilbrick actually threatens to apply WP:BOOMERANG to him. That's the one used at WP:AN/ANI to block the person that submits the complaint. Sphilbrick remarkably wants to apply it for comments made at Jimbo's talkpage where Jimbo says he has an open door policy.

I'm not prepared to footnote this stuff with precise hyperlinks here and there, Eric, it gets difficult especially with all the reverts here and there where you have to sort it out from the history. An IP took the side of Nazariy in there somewhere and was reverted and blocked. It's there though for anyone who's done this before to sort out the diffs and do his or here own appraisal.

For record: the ANI thugs who quickly were all over Nazariy were Robert McClenon, Dave Dial, Tenofalltrades, John Carter, Mark Miller, Cyclopia, Sphilbrick, and of course WP:AN/ANI Grandmaster Dennis Brown himself. Each piling on and bullying the newbie, each behaving like a cheap lowlife. They are sickening and it's a sickening system that enables them.

All right, you want to go off topic and attack Dennis Brown because you have a longstanding grudge with him, let me come to his defense.

You are absolutely framing this dishonestly when you call NazariyKaminski (T-C-L) a "newish editor." BULLSHIT. This is an obvious alternate account, launched on Sept. 12, 2013, who after 5 innocuous edits on his first day, used the UNDO button on his second visit, and sited "NPOV" for his justification of using the UNDO button on the Ted Cruz (T-H-L) article on his 4th visit. link

The top pages of this so-called "newish editor" are those of Texas Republican US Senator Ted Cruz (188) and Texas State Senator and Democratic nominee for Governor Wendy Davis (politician) (T-H-L) (177) — these numbers very large fractions of the total edits by this person, which stand at less than 2,000.

He is, in short, someone who gets his jollies crossing horns in heavily trafficked BLPs of leading politicians. An adrenaline junkie...

I offer no opinion about the ideological bias of NK's editing but do see in his edit history almost non-stop aggressive behavior towards other editors (article ownership), including use of the revert and undo button, demands for talk page consensus first from people making edits he disagrees with, edit warring over content up to 3RR, and aggressive edit summaries...

If anybody is a bully on WP, it is not Dennis Brown, it is NazariyKaminski.

He is what I would characterize as a prick.

So yeah, now tell us all about this babe in the woods NazariyKaminski and big mean, old Dennis Brown picking on him.

RfB

[Vigilant]

[Midsize Jake]

I offer no opinion about the ideological bias of NK's editing but...

Opinion, schmopinion. He's clearly pro-Republican, and almost as clearly pro-Tea Party. The question is whether or not Dennis Brown & Co. are deliberately trying to slant the Dave Brat article with a pro-Democrat, anti-GOP-TEA agenda - not that I personally would see anything wrong with that. Regardless, it looks like both sides are basing their edits on ideological agendas, and Mr. Brown is the administrator, so it's natural that he gets most of the bashing for it, even if he's not the instigator.

If one were to take their side, then the statement from Mr. Triptych's post that should be challenged is probably this one (with emphasis on non-"neutral" language):

He innocuously critiques Dennis' excruciating assertion that Mr. Brat "credits God with actual intervention" in the primary as if Brat believes it were as God parting the Red Sea for Moses and the Hebrews to escape the Egyptian army. He asks Dennis if the Brat article is going to have to specifically quote in the article each time Brat thanks God in a public setting. At this point Dennis is irritated and so he and then his thugs begin setting up Nazariy with all the usually jargon and consciously loaded language to facilitate a block

IMO, Mr. Triptych is engaging in some hyperbole here, since Mr. Brat did in fact say that God was "guiding the hand of the voters." It's hardly "excruciating" to point out that he did say this, and if we accept that, criticizing the assertion is not really "innocuous" since it's an attempt to remove and leave out information that might assist voters in deciding whether or not to support Brat's candidacy.

Even so, that doesn't mean Mr. Triptych is wrong about the way Mr. Kaminsky was treated. We might personally applaud the way he was treated because we oppose his ideology, but unfortunately that doesn't change the fact that he was goaded into a dubious civility violation and railroaded into a block, like so many others before him.

[Mason]

I have a lot of respect for Dennis Brown. Along with Writkeeper, he was one of the very few prominent editors to stand up and say that contacting the employer ISP of our friend Kumioko was not right.

[eagle]

For record: the ANI thugs who quickly were all over Nazariy were Robert McClenon, Dave Dial, Tenofalltrades, John Carter, Mark Miller, Cyclopia, Sphilbrick, and of course WP:AN/ANI Grandmaster Dennis Brown himself. Each piling on and bullying the newbie, each behaving like a cheap lowlife. They are sickening and it's a sickening system that enables them.

Mark Miller (T-C-L) is extremely strange. I ran into him under his prior (but more appropriate) user name Amadscientist (T-C-L) I can't tell if he is mean spirited or just completely clueless.

[Triptych]

All right, you want to go off topic and attack Dennis Brown because you have a longstanding grudge with him, let me come to his defense.

You are absolutely framing this dishonestly when you call NazariyKaminski (T-C-L) a "newish editor." BULLSHIT. This is an obvious alternate account, launched on Sept. 12, 2013, who after 5 innocuous edits on his first day, used the UNDO button on his second visit, and sited "NPOV" for his justification of using the UNDO button on the Ted Cruz (T-H-L) article on his 4th visit. link

The top pages of this so-called "newish editor" are those of Texas Republican US Senator Ted Cruz (188) and Texas State Senator and Democratic nominee for Governor Wendy Davis (politician) (T-H-L) (177) — these numbers very large fractions of the total edits by this person, which stand at less than 2,000.

He is, in short, someone who gets his jollies crossing horns in heavily trafficked BLPs of leading politicians. An adrenaline junkie...

I offer no opinion about the ideological bias of NK's editing but do see in his edit history almost non-stop aggressive behavior towards other editors (article ownership), including use of the revert and undo button, demands for talk page consensus first from people making edits he disagrees with, edit warring over content up to 3RR, and aggressive edit summaries...

If anybody is a bully on WP, it is not Dennis Brown, it is NazariyKaminski.

He is what I would characterize as a prick.

So yeah, now tell us all about this babe in the woods NazariyKaminski and big mean, old Dennis Brown picking on him.

I feel like I have conveyed reasoned explanation of my opinion that Dennis Brown is a cheap dumb ANI cyberbully, and indeed I've seen a statistic that bears it out. I'm not prepared to give a link right now, but I clearly recall seeing a statistic a year or so ago that he was the number one participant at ANI. I feel that to any objective observer coming fresh to this discussion, that I've given better evidence for my positions than Randy from Boise has for his.

By the looks of it (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... on=history) Dennis has rev-deleted or oversighted, or caused to be rev-deleted or oversighted, the versions of his userpage prior 9 Oct. 2013. Why? How come administrators like him and Beeblebrox get to delete anything they did when they like, and common editors and BLP victims have to beg administrators for same? Here's a cache I just did of Dennis' userpage 20130815 (https://archive.today/vKOx4). Boo-yah!

I feel like I didn't frame anything dishonestly in my last post up the thread. I'm not even sure I know how to go about framing anything dishonestly. Do I have to be dishonest to frame something dishonestly? I like the post here though where the other guy says my Red Sea simile regarding Dennis' portrayal Brat's statement is over-the-top. I'll smiling take that hit.

You have not convinced me by the above that Nazariy is a sock, Randy. You say because he cited WP:NPOV after his first five edits and clicked the "undo" button, that he was not a new editor? I still view him as a newish editor, by which I meant middle-late last year, and he seems to me to be an English-as-a-second-language editor.

[Notvelty]

You have not convinced me by the above that Nazariy is a sock, Randy. You say because he cited WP:NPOV after his first five edits and clicked the "undo" button, that he was not a new editor? I still view him as a newish editor, by which I meant middle-late last year, and he seems to me to be an English-as-a-second-language editor.

I'm coming around to the opinion that this is all some sort of performance art. Surely you can't really believe what you wrote there?

Brat is clearly an opinionated politician who is going to attract a lot of comment. Some (a lot?) of it is going to be from people who clearly have a barrow to push (as does he). Nazariy is clearly a sock.

On Dennis Brown, my opinion that he's an inveterate rug sweeper has not changed one bit, but here he doesn't seem to be much in the wrong. He's got an opinion and he certainly doesn't do enough to hide that opinion in his work, but I'd go further than Jake in somewhat defending him - I think he honestly believes that his opinion is neutral. In the 1950s he'd have been on the other side.

However, I'm struggling to work out what this partisan commentary on something entirely unrelated to the topic has with, you know, the topic.

[Randy from Boise]

I feel like I have conveyed reasoned explanation of my opinion that Dennis Brown is a cheap dumb ANI cyberbully, and indeed I've seen a statistic that bears it out. I'm not prepared to give a link right now, but I clearly recall seeing a statistic a year or so ago that he was the number one participant at ANI.

He is also consistently the most reasonable voice at AN/I.

You've gotta dive into crowds to stop lynch mobs, true fact.

He doesn't hide behind a veil of anonymity, he's not talking shit about people behind their backs... He is simply a really good, solid administrator.

RfB

[Notvelty]

[

I feel like I have conveyed reasoned explanation of my opinion that Dennis Brown is a cheap dumb ANI cyberbully, and indeed I've seen a statistic that bears it out. I'm not prepared to give a link right now, but I clearly recall seeing a statistic a year or so ago that he was the number one participant at ANI.

He is also consistently the most reasonable voice at AN/I.

You've gotta dive into crowds to stop lynch mobs, true fact.

He doesn't hide behind a veil of anonymity, he's not talking shit about people behind their backs... He is simply a really good, solid administrator.

RfB

There is another thread on this site which tells me that there are no current "really good, solid" administrators. If there were but one, there would be a sudden drop in the impression of the level of grooming going on on Wikipedia.

Rug. Sweeper.

[Triptych]

He doesn't hide behind a veil of anonymity, he's not talking shit about people behind their backs... He is simply a really good, solid administrator.

You are averring that the Wikipedia administrator with username "Dennis_Brown" is in fact a person with real name Dennis Brown? If so, how do you know?

I guess the thread really has gone off-topic by now. The reason I brought up Dennis the Menace and his thugs was counterpoint Sumana's assertion that administrators need to get rid of "assholes," as she said.

EDIT: All I did I think was correct my grammar, and maybe add a little bit within 90 seconds of my original post.

[Randy from Boise]

[

I feel like I have conveyed reasoned explanation of my opinion that Dennis Brown is a cheap dumb ANI cyberbully, and indeed I've seen a statistic that bears it out. I'm not prepared to give a link right now, but I clearly recall seeing a statistic a year or so ago that he was the number one participant at ANI.

He is also consistently the most reasonable voice at AN/I.

You've gotta dive into crowds to stop lynch mobs, true fact.

He doesn't hide behind a veil of anonymity, he's not talking shit about people behind their backs... He is simply a really good, solid administrator.

RfB

There is another thread on this site which tells me that there are no current "really good, solid" administrators. If there were but one, there would be a sudden drop in the impression of the level of grooming going on on Wikipedia.

Rug. Sweeper.

There are a couple more really good, solid administrators who post here, what are you talking about?

tim

[Triptych]

You have not convinced me by the above that Nazariy is a sock, Randy. You say because he cited WP:NPOV after his first five edits and clicked the "undo" button, that he was not a new editor? I still view him as a newish editor, by which I meant middle-late last year, and he seems to me to be an English-as-a-second-language editor.

I'm coming around to the opinion that this is all some sort of performance art. Surely you can't really believe what you wrote there?

Yes I do-o, and I think you discredit yourself by calling him a sock without explaining it any better.

[tarantino]

He doesn't hide behind a veil of anonymity, he's not talking shit about people behind their backs... He is simply a really good, solid administrator.

You are averring that the Wikipedia administrator with username "Dennis_Brown" is in fact a person with real name Dennis Brown? If so, how do you know?

I guess the thread really has gone off-topic by now. The reason I brought up Dennis the Menace and his thugs was counterpoint Sumana's assertion that administrators need to get rid of "assholes," as she said.

EDIT: All I did I think was correct my grammar, and maybe add a little bit within 90 seconds of my original post.

Yes, that's his real name. His employer, where he is marketing director, links to his wp user account. He used to be very active in articles related to tanning, and has mentioned his potential conflict in the past.

[Kumioko]

I admittedly haven't read this whole string but from the title I would have to say I don't think Dennis is one of the abusive admins. I could name quite a few, and I agree about Beeblebrox certainly, I would also add one Sandstein, one Kww and the rest of the Arbcom but I guess maybe my interactions with DB are different than some here.

[SB_Johnny]

I've always had a favorable impression of him. I thought he had gone inactive though: wasn't he the one Arbcom got nasty with because of the WikiPR debacle?

[Sparky]

You are absolutely framing this dishonestly when you call NazariyKaminski (T-C-L) a "newish editor." BULLSHIT. This is an obvious alternate account, launched on Sept. 12, 2013, who after 5 innocuous edits on his first day, used the UNDO button on his second visit, and sited "NPOV" for his justification of using the UNDO button on the Ted Cruz (T-H-L) article on his 4th visit. link

...

RfB

This posts brings back memories of my WP greeting from BMK.

Not meant as a compliment. He was wrong, FWIW.

[Notvelty]

[

I feel like I have conveyed reasoned explanation of my opinion that Dennis Brown is a cheap dumb ANI cyberbully, and indeed I've seen a statistic that bears it out. I'm not prepared to give a link right now, but I clearly recall seeing a statistic a year or so ago that he was the number one participant at ANI.

He is also consistently the most reasonable voice at AN/I.

You've gotta dive into crowds to stop lynch mobs, true fact.

He doesn't hide behind a veil of anonymity, he's not talking shit about people behind their backs... He is simply a really good, solid administrator.

RfB

There is another thread on this site which tells me that there are no current "really good, solid" administrators. If there were but one, there would be a sudden drop in the impression of the level of grooming going on on Wikipedia.

Rug. Sweeper.

There are a couple more really good, solid administrators who post here, what are you talking about?

tim

Them too. Fix it or go down in flames trying. Anything else is supporting it (eventually) in some way. I have some sympathy for Alison, who uses her position in some specific ways which offer some important protections for certain children, but otherwise... nup.. not good enough.

I can see why Dennis doesn't like threads like these and intentionally uses the posts of one to misrepresent the posts of the majority, though. It makes his rug sweeping uncomfortable. Note particularly how the claims he does answer are the very claims that other posters here have also answered. This is rug sweeping, Tim - writ large. He'll talk a good fight.. but when push comes to shove, that's no rope-a-dope.

[Triptych]

I admittedly haven't read this whole string but from the title I would have to say I don't think Dennis is one of the abusive admins. I could name quite a few, and I agree about Beeblebrox certainly, I would also add one Sandstein, one Kww and the rest of the Arbcom but I guess maybe my interactions with DB are different than some here.

I hear what you and Notvelty and SBJ are saying about him, that he's actually okay or at least one of the better administrators. I started out criticizing him with specifics of his and his gang's bullying Nazariykaminski case and I stand by that, but in the face of your and others' disagreement I shouldn't have just derided him later as just another "cheap and dumb administrator." I would go back to edit those particular words but the timer allowing changes ran out.

Like someone said, yes he at least was among the few that loudly protested the idea of complaining to the employer of a supposed abusive or block-evading Wikipedia editor. He was pretty adamant about it where I read him. On that particular point, he's more valuable and smarter than any arb that spoke. Though that's not saying much. Did he do that before or after that ratfink emailed your boss, Kumioko? At any rate he didn't stop the practice: Jimbo-advocated "going meatspace" with no known standards or controls has not been refuted. By the way, do you recall if he opposed your ban, Kumioko? IIRC he wasn't posting actively at the time and did not comment.

SBJ, yes Dennis had some sort of minor conflict with Arbcom on the WikiPR case, that case of the extensive paid editing network that made the news at Daily Dot and elsewhere. We only got bits and pieces of that, but Dennis in marathon 16-hour editing sessions had been chasing after these guys and blocking them. I think the arbs told him "cool it" but there was some particular thing they said that he didn't care for.

I'll reiterate my view that the treatment of NazariyKaminski was WP:AN/ANI-style hounding and bullying at its worst, and that wilding administrative hyena pack included Robert McClenon, Dave Dial, Tenofalltrades, John Carter, Mark Miller, Cyclopia, Sphilbrick, and of course Dennis Brown. I just went back to look at Nazariy's oldest edits and I do not see anything there that indicates a returning editor or a sock or anything like that. Pressing the "undo" button on one's seventh edit does not reveal one is a sock. Editing the articles of political figures does not reveal a sock or vandal or edit warrior or anything like that. There might be an argumentative phrase here or there from Nazariy, of course, but I simply have not read or been pointed anything objectionable from him (or her, I guess I should say him or her because I don't know). That's my viewpoint. So I reject the criticism of anybody here that I have "framed" anything misleadingly.

[Hex]

By the looks of it (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... on=history) Dennis has rev-deleted or oversighted, or caused to be rev-deleted or oversighted, the versions of his userpage prior 9 Oct. 2013. Why?

No. He deleted it, just as any user can have their user page deleted by putting {{db-u1}} on it.

How come administrators like him and Beeblebrox get to delete anything they did when they like, and common editors and BLP victims have to beg administrators for same?

More like you're begging the question by basing it on an illegitimate comparison.

[Triptych]

By the looks of it (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... on=history) Dennis has rev-deleted or oversighted, or caused to be rev-deleted or oversighted, the versions of his userpage prior 9 Oct. 2013. Why?

No. He deleted it, just as any user can have their user page deleted by putting {{db-u1}} on it.

How come administrators like him and Beeblebrox get to delete anything they did when they like, and common editors and BLP victims have to beg administrators for same?

More like you're begging the question by basing it on an illegitimate comparison.

I just didn't know that {{db-u1}} trick. What's it do, trigger an automatic process or flag the userpage for an administrator? Anyhow, at one point Beeblebrox did wipe out his Fuck Off essay, history and all.

[SB_Johnny]

By the looks of it (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... on=history) Dennis has rev-deleted or oversighted, or caused to be rev-deleted or oversighted, the versions of his userpage prior 9 Oct. 2013. Why?

No. He deleted it, just as any user can have their user page deleted by putting {{db-u1}} on it.

How come administrators like him and Beeblebrox get to delete anything they did when they like, and common editors and BLP victims have to beg administrators for same?

More like you're begging the question by basing it on an illegitimate comparison.

I just didn't know that {{db-u1}} trick. What's it do, trigger an automatic process or flag the userpage for an administrator? Anyhow, at one point Beeblebrox did wipe out his Fuck Off essay, history and all.

It puts it in a category so admins can come have a look and make sure you're of the body, and not asking for deletion to hide your not-of-the-body-ness.

[Randy from Boise]

I said howdy to Dennis yesterday and gave him a link to this thread. I knew he wouldn't post here...

Here's part of his reply:

* * *
"I probably AM ANI's biggest participant. So what? It isn't by accident, I said I intended to patrol ANI in my RFA, Q1 (link)

"And the political stuff is even funnier. I get called a liberal as much as I get called a conservative here. A tool of the Dems, or a patsy for the GOP. Anyone that looked would know I'm neither, although I don't advertise my politics and avoid editing politics (check the Dave Brat article, I've done ZERO article edits...oops, they didn't notice that, did they?). And no one knows my religion here.

"The 'is that his real name?' stuff is [even] funnier. Anyone with the tech savvy of a 15 year old could locate me and verify that its my real name. Tarantino got it right because he bothered to look. * * *

"I personally have plenty of complaints about Wikipedia, but I find people [at WPO] get it wrong as much as they get it right. Not talking about anyone in that thread specifically, but some users on that site don't really care about the truth, they just want to run people down. And they have less accountability than Wikipedia itself, so I don't see the point, and I can't take it too serious. But thanks for the link, it was slightly amusing, slightly annoying, but not very enlightening." —Dennis Brown 7:15 pm, June 18, 2014 (UTC−7)

[Triptych]

I said howdy to Dennis yesterday and gave him a link to this thread. I knew he wouldn't post here...

Here's part of his reply:

* * *
"I probably AM ANI's biggest participant. So what? It isn't by accident, I said I intended to patrol ANI in my RFA, Q1 (link)

"And the political stuff is even funnier. I get called a liberal as much as I get called a conservative here. A tool of the Dems, or a patsy for the GOP. Anyone that looked would know I'm neither, although I don't advertise my politics and avoid editing politics (check the Dave Brat article, I've done ZERO article edits...oops, they didn't notice that, did they?). And no one knows my religion here.

"The 'is that his real name?' stuff is [even] funnier. Anyone with the tech savvy of a 15 year old could locate me and verify that its my real name. Tarantino got it right because he bothered to look. * * *

"I personally have plenty of complaints about Wikipedia, but I find people [at WPO] get it wrong as much as they get it right. Not talking about anyone in that thread specifically, but some users on that site don't really care about the truth, they just want to run people down. And they have less accountability than Wikipedia itself, so I don't see the point, and I can't take it too serious. But thanks for the link, it was slightly amusing, slightly annoying, but not very enlightening." —Dennis Brown 7:15 pm, June 18, 2014 (UTC−7)

The Dave Brat quote on his underdog primary victory is "[a]nd I was blessed. I mean, it's a miracle. What do I attribute it to? First of all, I attribute it to God. And I'm utterly humbled and thankful. I'm a believer and so I'm humbled that God gave us this win. But right with that, God acts through people, and God acted through the people on my behalf." Right now, it appears to have settled in the article, cited to Fox News and the Wall Street Journal.

To me there's nothing remarkable about the statement. Virginia is Bible Belt USA country. I think most political candidates thank God and give praise to Jesus and so forth. It's not wacky, at least not in and of itself. It's boilerplate. From my reading of the talkpage debate about including it, those against said "hey, there is no reason to highlight and indent this quote, it says elsewhere in the article that he praises God frequently."

Dennis however claimed there that it "offers a window into the mind of the subject. While many athletes and policitians are quick to thank God for their success, it is rare when someone credits God with actual intervention, and is sincere in that belief. This wasn't a one off remark or slip of the tongue, it was a clear statement by someone who is devoutly religious, and is in fact quite learned in divinity, thus was aware of the implications of the statement."

So yeah I found this view silly and felt he was reading too much into it, and the assertion that Brat was thereby "crediting God with actual intervention" was in fact excruciating as I said. That's when I likened it to where God actually intervened for Moses by parting the Red Sea, an analogy that I know you all found quite witty.

Here is the part from the Brat talkpage where Dennis came to be at odds with Nazariy:

*'''Oppose deletion''' from an outsider's perspective. - In this example, the quote isn't in dispute, is properly sourced and offers a window into the mind of the subject. While many athletes and policitians are quick to thank God for their success, it is rare when someone credits God with actual intervention, and is sincere in that belief. This wasn't a one off remark or slip of the tongue, it was a clear statement by someone who is devoutly religious, and is in fact quite learned in divinity, thus was aware of the implications of the statement. As he himself has made it clear that you can't separate him from his beliefs, using this specific quote gives the reader a true and accurate picture of his philosophy, in an extraordinarily concise way. Without question, it falls safely within our BLP guidelines and can not possibly violate [[WP:WEIGHT]] as it is core to who he says he is. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis&nbsp;Brown</b>]]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;[[User talk:Dennis Brown|2¢]]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;[[WP:WikiProject Editor Retention|<small>WER</small>]] 19:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

::So, you agree with {{U|Cwobeel}} that every single time he invokes God in public environment we will put the invocation into the article and when we do that we are not violating undue weight?--[[User:NazariyKaminski|NK]] ([[User talk:NazariyKaminski|talk]]) 19:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

:::Your question is entirely too [[WP:POINT]]y to warrant a reply. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis&nbsp;Brown</b>]]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;[[User talk:Dennis Brown|2¢]]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;[[WP:WikiProject Editor Retention|<small>WER</small>]] 19:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Big "wow." "So, you agree with {{U|Cwobeel}} that every single time he invokes God in public environment we will put the invocation into the article and when we do that we are not violating undue weight?" This triggered the snooty WP:POINT remark from Dennis and it later snowballed to "drag you to ANI" threat by Dennis, and also like six other ANI goons throwing similarly bogusly applied policy jargon at Nazariy, and they were all clearly setting him up for a block. Very disgusting, and we see this all the time from the ANI crowd.

When I responded Randy or whomever it was that praised his non-anonymity, "are you confident that's actually his name?" I neither claimed it was or wasn't. There are plenty of people who use real-name-sounding handles on Wikipedia. Like James B. Watson (who isn't really any James B. Watson) and Bwilikins (whose first name doesn't begin with "B" and whose last name is not Wilkins). What I was saying is that such handles are not any indication of non-anonymity without further information.

It's fine with me if Dennis reads this thread and I don't care if he finds it "not very enlightening." One really has to be willing to listen and learn before he or she can be enlightened.

[Kumioko]

I admittedly haven't read this whole string but from the title I would have to say I don't think Dennis is one of the abusive admins. I could name quite a few, and I agree about Beeblebrox certainly, I would also add one Sandstein, one Kww and the rest of the Arbcom but I guess maybe my interactions with DB are different than some here.

I hear what you and Notvelty and SBJ are saying about him, that he's actually okay or at least one of the better administrators. I started out criticizing him with specifics of his and his gang's bullying Nazariykaminski case and I stand by that, but in the face of your and others' disagreement I shouldn't have just derided him later as just another "cheap and dumb administrator." I would go back to edit those particular words but the timer allowing changes ran out.

Like someone said, yes he at least was among the few that loudly protested the idea of complaining to the employer of a supposed abusive or block-evading Wikipedia editor. He was pretty adamant about it where I read him. On that particular point, he's more valuable and smarter than any arb that spoke. Though that's not saying much. Did he do that before or after that ratfink emailed your boss, Kumioko? At any rate he didn't stop the practice: Jimbo-advocated "going meatspace" with no known standards or controls has not been refuted. By the way, do you recall if he opposed your ban, Kumioko? IIRC he wasn't posting actively at the time and did not comment.

SBJ, yes Dennis had some sort of minor conflict with Arbcom on the WikiPR case, that case of the extensive paid editing network that made the news at Daily Dot and elsewhere. We only got bits and pieces of that, but Dennis in marathon 16-hour editing sessions had been chasing after these guys and blocking them. I think the arbs told him "cool it" but there was some particular thing they said that he didn't care for.

I'll reiterate my view that the treatment of NazariyKaminski was WP:AN/ANI-style hounding and bullying at its worst, and that wilding administrative hyena pack included Robert McClenon, Dave Dial, Tenofalltrades, John Carter, Mark Miller, Cyclopia, Sphilbrick, and of course Dennis Brown. I just went back to look at Nazariy's oldest edits and I do not see anything there that indicates a returning editor or a sock or anything like that. Pressing the "undo" button on one's seventh edit does not reveal one is a sock. Editing the articles of political figures does not reveal a sock or vandal or edit warrior or anything like that. There might be an argumentative phrase here or there from Nazariy, of course, but I simply have not read or been pointed anything objectionable from him (or her, I guess I should say him or her because I don't know). That's my viewpoint. So I reject the criticism of anybody here that I have "framed" anything misleadingly.

The first thing to remember in my case was that there wasn't one threat to ban me, it was a string of them submitted on after another and they just kept resubmitting until they got one to stick. It didn't matter that multiple ban discussions had been shot down, it only took one to exile me. The actual discussion that got me banned was fast and the only ones that had a chance to vote on it for the most part were a half dozen abusive admins and editors. Most of which I have complained about being abusive in the past, so as soon as they got the vote they wanted they closed it as a "consensus". Just look at it here: link. Its a who's who of shitbags and abusive editors and Admins.
- Djsasso (T-C-L) (worthless),
- AndyTheGrump (T-C-L) (a complete and well known jerk),
- Demiurge1000 (T-C-L) (inept),
- Resolute (T-C-L)(well known dick),
- Binksternet (T-C-L) (should have been banned long ago)
- etc.

So no I do not believe Dennis even had a chance to vote. I think he did vote on one as oppose to ban. They were intent on kicking me out so most people that I spoke to after the fact via Email didn't bother the last time because they knew a few were just going to keep submitting until they got what they wanted.

[Midsize Jake]

And the political stuff is even funnier. I get called a liberal as much as I get called a conservative here. A tool of the Dems, or a patsy for the GOP. Anyone that looked would know I'm neither, although I don't advertise my politics and avoid editing politics (check the Dave Brat article, I've done ZERO article edits...oops, they didn't notice that, did they?). And no one knows my religion here.

That's just it, though. Dennis Brown might be the most principled, least corrupt admin on WP for all we know (though that's not saying much), but the fact that he doesn't "advertise his politics" and that nobody "knows his religion" is precisely what makes it impossible for people to properly evaluate his motivations in a case like this. We only have his word for it that he can make unbiased decisions on how to manage content disputes of this kind, and knowing what we know about other WP administrators, there is simply no way that anyone who has observed WP for any length of time could give him the benefit of the doubt.

As for article edits on Dave Brat (T-H-L), I for one did notice that he hadn't made any, I suspect most of us did, but that doesn't matter, which is why I for one didn't mention it. As an administrator, Mr. Brown's influence is substantially greater than that of a non-admin user and he can easily direct editorial activity via the talk page, or AN/I, or some other venue. To suggest that his involvement was somehow innocuous because it was limited to the talk page is simply disingenuous.

Most importantly, in case Mr. Brown is reading this, I would ask him not to expect us to study his personal editorial and administrative history on WP In much detail - that isn't normally what we do. He's part of a class, and that class has a bad reputation when seen from an external perspective. And frankly, one more "good" admin out of 600 (active) or 1900 (in all, last I bothered to check) doesn't raise the bar enough overall to even be noticed. So it's not that unreasonable to ask him to demonstrate, in each individual case, that he's trying to do the right thing, or even prove that he's not actually being abusive.

[Neotarf]

The actual discussion that got me banned was fast and the only ones that had a chance to vote on it for the most part were a half dozen abusive admins and editors.

I'm looking at the banning policy and was surprised to see that "discussions are normally kept open for at least 24 hours", which doesn't seem like very long, considering that RFCs are supposed to go for 30 days. This particular discussion went from 03:16, 26 February 2014 to 03:28, 28 February 2014, but I don't see that the "subject editor" was allowed to post a response, and I particularly don't see any discussion of "strength and quality" of the arguments at the close.

There is no doubt in my mind that the community will want Kumioko to come back. But not now.

NYB 's offer of a moratorium was well done, but unfortunately it doesn't look like it has been honored by the other arbs. I don't see that the edit filters that prevent Kumioko from signing his name have been withdrawn, and judging by Kumioko's new and creative spelling of the word "ban" (bahn?!??), it looks like they continue to poke the bear by creating new edit filters, just for him. Kumioko can be fun, and they obviously want to play.

IMHO, Kumioko should accept the moratorium offer and take a break. There is a new sheriff in town. It will take some time to see how that will play out.

[Kumioko]

And the political stuff is even funnier. I get called a liberal as much as I get called a conservative here. A tool of the Dems, or a patsy for the GOP. Anyone that looked would know I'm neither, although I don't advertise my politics and avoid editing politics (check the Dave Brat article, I've done ZERO article edits...oops, they didn't notice that, did they?). And no one knows my religion here.

That's just it, though. Dennis Brown might be the most principled, least corrupt admin on WP for all we know (though that's not saying much), but the fact that he doesn't "advertise his politics" and that nobody "knows his religion" is precisely what makes it impossible for people to properly evaluate his motivations in a case like this. We only have his word for it that he can make unbiased decisions on how to manage content disputes of this kind, and knowing what we know about other WP administrators, there is simply no way that anyone who has observed WP for any length of time could give him the benefit of the doubt.

Just my personal opinion but I don't see how someone's religious or political affiliations should matter. I personally don't care if the admin is practicing witchcraft or an ordained minister of opus dai, if they are fair and utilize the tools respectfully I am fine with them. With that said, I do think the admin system on Wikipedia needs to be completely scrapped and the reengineered. As it is its designed for abuse and that is exactly what happens on the sliding scale of corruption. Some might be on the low end of the scale and others on the high end, but the scale is still the scale and its not going to change unless it gets so bad they are forced to change.

The actual discussion that got me banned was fast and the only ones that had a chance to vote on it for the most part were a half dozen abusive admins and editors.

I'm looking at the banning policy and was surprised to see that "discussions are normally kept open for at least 24 hours", which doesn't seem like very long, considering that RFCs are supposed to go for 30 days. This particular discussion went from 03:16, 26 February 2014 to 03:28, 28 February 2014, but I don't see that the "subject editor" was allowed to post a response, and I particularly don't see any discussion of "strength and quality" of the arguments at the close.

There is no doubt in my mind that the community will want Kumioko to come back. But not now.

NYB 's offer of a moratorium was well done, but unfortunately it doesn't look like it has been honored by the other arbs. I don't see that the edit filters that prevent Kumioko from signing his name have been withdrawn, and judging by Kumioko's new and creative spelling of the word "ban" (bahn?!??), it looks like they continue to poke the bear by creating new edit filters, just for him. Kumioko can be fun, and they obviously want to play.

IMHO, Kumioko should accept the moratorium offer and take a break. There is a new sheriff in town. It will take some time to see how that will play out.

To be honest Neotarf I didn't post for about three weeks and was actually going to let it go. But then someone contacted my employer, they continued to block editors who were completely innocent and didn't have any connection too me, they blamed me for vandalism (even though Brad at least later retracted his claims), etc. The community doesn't even honor the ban and the arbs and admins are so corrupt they not only don't have any intention of doing anything to stop it they participate in it and instigate the problems when they can. So personally, I accept the community will not ever let me back not do I particularly want to come back. Its merely a principle thing for me at this point honestly. My ban was an abusive tactic by some abusive editors and admins to rid the project of a critic so they could be free to abuse. They are bullies and as long as I am banned by bullies I am not going to respect it. I have told the arbs and various members of the community if they want me to stop posting and socking, then they need to unban my account. Otherwise if they aren't going to respect the sites policies I don't really feel inclined too either. At least I am clearly marking them as mine in some form. Ironically all the edit filter did was make it harder for them to identifiy its me and makes it harder for people to use certain words like ban and abusive without misspelling them. The edit filters themselves are just more examples of the abusive nature of the site and show the lengths that some admins will go to.

[Kiefer.Wolfowitz]

Does Dennis Brown make mistakes?
Yes.

Does Dennis Brown try to do the right thing and does he have sufficient intelligence and education to be an administrator?
Yes.

Is this the end of the rhetorical questions?
What, do you confuse me with Fluffernutter?

[eagle]

There is a new sheriff in town. It will take some time to see how that will play out.

We should all seriously question and consider that assumption. In a hypothetical case where the owner of a website turns it over to a non-profit group, and the board of that non-profit hires an Executive Director to raise funds and supervise staff, the Executive Director would be "the new sheriff in town."

However, there is no indication that Dennis Brown or any of the other WikiAdmins will take their lead from the new Executive Director. Perhaps those seeking full time employment from the WMF will curry favor with her, but those seeking lutz or WikiBrownie points will hang out on Jimbo Wales talk page and take their cues from him. With the advent of the Funds Dissemination Committee, the Executive Director does not even have veto power on how the good-will-buying cash will be spread among the body politic.

[Midsize Jake]

Just my personal opinion but I don't see how someone's religious or political affiliations should matter. I personally don't care if the admin is practicing witchcraft or an ordained minister of opus dai, if they are fair and utilize the tools respectfully I am fine with them.

Just to clarify, I'm not saying they should matter either, and personally I would just as soon not know or care. What I am saying is that he has no right to get in high dudgeon over our failure to give him the benefit of the doubt in this case, when he isn't revealing that information and is part of a class of people who have been known to behave abusively to people who don't share their ideologies in the past.

Let me put it this way: If he were to state very clearly that he's politically conservative and devoutly Christian too, then he would look better for having gone against his basic inclinations by sanctioning Mr. Kaminsky, no...? Or, he could state that he isn't interested in politics or religion at all, and enough people would probably believe him to allow him some cover for the occasional seemingly-biased action. By not revealing anything, he's getting the worst of both worlds - neither side will want to believe he's reliable or unbiased, at least not based on just his say-so. They can only go by his actions, which were somewhat suspect in this particular case (even though I personally agree with the outcome).

[Kumioko]

Just my personal opinion but I don't see how someone's religious or political affiliations should matter. I personally don't care if the admin is practicing witchcraft or an ordained minister of opus dai, if they are fair and utilize the tools respectfully I am fine with them.

Just to clarify, I'm not saying they should matter either, and personally I would just as soon not know or care. What I am saying is that he has no right to get in high dudgeon over our failure to give him the benefit of the doubt in this case, when he isn't revealing that information and is part of a class of people who have been known to behave abusively to people who don't share their ideologies in the past.

Let me put it this way: If he were to state very clearly that he's politically conservative and devoutly Christian too, then he would look better for having gone against his basic inclinations by sanctioning Mr. Kaminsky, no...? Or, he could state that he isn't interested in politics or religion at all, and enough people would probably believe him to allow him some cover for the occasional seemingly-biased action. By not revealing anything, he's getting the worst of both worlds - neither side will want to believe he's reliable or unbiased, at least not based on just his say-so. They can only go by his actions, which were somewhat suspect in this particular case (even though I personally agree with the outcome).

Ok, I see what you are saying and I agree that the outcome was on the odd side. I don't really think his failure to state his religious or political affiliations are the root cause of the reliability though. That is a product of the Wikiculture. Sure they say AGF, but what generally happens is exactly the opposite. Those that agree support you but generally either do so in a passive aggressive way that distances them from the decision or they act like an ass. Same with the other side of the argument. So I don't think stating his beliefs are the problem, its the sites culture...or lack of it.

[EricBarbour]

I still see a lot of bitching, and not much in-depth analysis of why this is an abuse of Wikipedia.....and then you wonder why Mr. Brown complains about Wikipediocracy.

[Kiefer.Wolfowitz]

I admittedly haven't read this whole string but from the title I would have to say I don't think Dennis is one of the abusive admins. I could name quite a few, and I agree about Beeblebrox certainly, I would also add one Sandstein, one Kww and the rest of the Arbcom but I guess maybe my interactions with DB are different than some here.

I hear what you and Notvelty and SBJ are saying about him, that he's actually okay or at least one of the better administrators. I started out criticizing him with specifics of his and his gang's bullying Nazariykaminski case and I stand by that, but in the face of your and others' disagreement I shouldn't have just derided him later as just another "cheap and dumb administrator." I would go back to edit those particular words but the timer allowing changes ran out.

Like someone said, yes he at least was among the few that loudly protested the idea of complaining to the employer of a supposed abusive or block-evading Wikipedia editor. He was pretty adamant about it where I read him. On that particular point, he's more valuable and smarter than any arb that spoke. Though that's not saying much. Did he do that before or after that ratfink emailed your boss, Kumioko? At any rate he didn't stop the practice: Jimbo-advocated "going meatspace" with no known standards or controls has not been refuted. By the way, do you recall if he opposed your ban, Kumioko? IIRC he wasn't posting actively at the time and did not comment.

SBJ, yes Dennis had some sort of minor conflict with Arbcom on the WikiPR case, that case of the extensive paid editing network that made the news at Daily Dot and elsewhere. We only got bits and pieces of that, but Dennis in marathon 16-hour editing sessions had been chasing after these guys and blocking them. I think the arbs told him "cool it" but there was some particular thing they said that he didn't care for.

I'll reiterate my view that the treatment of NazariyKaminski was WP:AN/ANI-style hounding and bullying at its worst, and that wilding administrative hyena pack included Robert McClenon, Dave Dial, Tenofalltrades, John Carter, Mark Miller, Cyclopia, Sphilbrick, and of course Dennis Brown. I just went back to look at Nazariy's oldest edits and I do not see anything there that indicates a returning editor or a sock or anything like that. Pressing the "undo" button on one's seventh edit does not reveal one is a sock. Editing the articles of political figures does not reveal a sock or vandal or edit warrior or anything like that. There might be an argumentative phrase here or there from Nazariy, of course, but I simply have not read or been pointed anything objectionable from him (or her, I guess I should say him or her because I don't know). That's my viewpoint. So I reject the criticism of anybody here that I have "framed" anything misleadingly.

The first thing to remember in my case was that there wasn't one threat to ban me, it was a string of them submitted on after another and they just kept resubmitting until they got one to stick. It didn't matter that multiple ban discussions had been shot down, it only took one to exile me. The actual discussion that got me banned was fast and the only ones that had a chance to vote on it for the most part were a half dozen abusive admins and editors. Most of which I have complained about being abusive in the past, so as soon as they got the vote they wanted they closed it as a "consensus". Just look at it here: link. Its a who's who of shitbags and abusive editors and Admins.
- Djsasso (T-C-L) (worthless),
- AndyTheGrump (T-C-L) (a complete and well known jerk),
- Demiurge1000 (T-C-L) (inept),
- Resolute (T-C-L)(well known dick),
- Binksternet (T-C-L) (should have been banned long ago)
- etc.

So no I do not believe Dennis even had a chance to vote. I think he did vote on one as oppose to ban. They were intent on kicking me out so most people that I spoke to after the fact via Email didn't bother the last time because they knew a few were just going to keep submitting until they got what they wanted.

Rants like this just hurt the reputation of the site.

Andy the Grump (T-C-L) is the best administrator who tries to protect living persons against Wikipediots, using the BLP policy and related policies, as RfB / Carrite (T-C-L) has told you also.

Kumioko, this kind of obsession is unhealthy for everybody.

[Randy from Boise]

And the political stuff is even funnier. I get called a liberal as much as I get called a conservative here. A tool of the Dems, or a patsy for the GOP. Anyone that looked would know I'm neither, although I don't advertise my politics and avoid editing politics (check the Dave Brat article, I've done ZERO article edits...oops, they didn't notice that, did they?). And no one knows my religion here.

That's just it, though. Dennis Brown might be the most principled, least corrupt admin on WP for all we know (though that's not saying much), but the fact that he doesn't "advertise his politics" and that nobody "knows his religion" is precisely what makes it impossible for people to properly evaluate his motivations in a case like this. We only have his word for it that he can make unbiased decisions on how to manage content disputes of this kind, and knowing what we know about other WP administrators, there is simply no way that anyone who has observed WP for any length of time could give him the benefit of the doubt.

As for article edits on Dave Brat (T-H-L), I for one did notice that he hadn't made any, I suspect most of us did, but that doesn't matter, which is why I for one didn't mention it. As an administrator, Mr. Brown's influence is substantially greater than that of a non-admin user and he can easily direct editorial activity via the talk page, or AN/I, or some other venue. To suggest that his involvement was somehow innocuous because it was limited to the talk page is simply disingenuous.

Most importantly, in case Mr. Brown is reading this, I would ask him not to expect us to study his personal editorial and administrative history on WP In much detail - that isn't normally what we do. He's part of a class, and that class has a bad reputation when seen from an external perspective. And frankly, one more "good" admin out of 600 (active) or 1900 (in all, last I bothered to check) doesn't raise the bar enough overall to even be noticed. So it's not that unreasonable to ask him to demonstrate, in each individual case, that he's trying to do the right thing, or even prove that he's not actually being abusive.

Instead of 600, there are probably more like 200 administrators on WP doing anything like regular work. So five or ten good ones is indeed significant.

Scott/Hex is also excellent, and there are others. There might even be 50 or 75 who don't suck, but the worst 10 distort the picture...

I'll repeat again (and you can watch his actions over the next year to confirm this): Dennis Brown is one of the "good guys." He knows there are problems and does his best within the system to ameliorate them. He is a voice of reason. He has a good eye for admin candidates who are trustworthy. He is NOT one of the bad actors and it was insulting and wrong for him to be lumped with certain people above.

RfB

[Kumioko]

And the problem is the worst 10 are some of the most active on the site.

@Keifer, we are going to have to agree to disagree on Andy. Andy does some good work, but he is often a jerk and lives up to his name of being Grumpy. I also do not agree he is the best admin at anything. Again, he is an admin and has some virtues, but those virtues are cancelled out with his I am better than you attitude. Lets remember, I did some good work too and no one cares about that either.

Mr. Brown doesn't think much of this site, as I read his comments, because some people on this site are intent to out as many editors as possible, use inappropriate insults and the like against Wikipedia editors. My focus has generally been directed at abusive admins or more specifically the abusive environment that the admin cadre represent. Many of the admins started off good but they became a product of the environment becoming more abusive as time goes on. Then you get admins like AGK, Sandstein and most of the rest of the arbcom who feel they are above the law, policy doesn't apply to them and they literally do whatever they want with no oversight.

[Volunteer Marek]

I have a lot of respect for Dennis Brown. Along with Writkeeper, he was one of the very few prominent editors to stand up and say that contacting the employer ISP of our friend Kumioko was not right.

Yeah, that one flipped my opinion of him (towards the "not so bad" part of the spectrum)

[HRIP7]

I still see a lot of bitching, and not much in-depth analysis of why this is an abuse of Wikipedia.....and then you wonder why Mr. Brown complains about Wikipediocracy.

+1

Speaking in general, these emotionally driven dramafests imported from Wikipedia make for some of the most tedious threads here, with the lowest signal-to-noise ratio.

This place is not "Son of AN/I".

[Randy from Boise]

Speaking in general, these emotionally driven dramafests imported from Wikipedia make for some of the most tedious threads here, with the lowest signal-to-noise ratio.

This place is not "Son of AN/I".

But of course it is...

RfB

[HRIP7]

This place is not "Son of AN/I".

But of course it is...

RfB

Well, I have never seen that as its purpose. Nor, for that matter, do I recall you ever using it in that manner.

I have generally little interest in "someone done me wrong at AN/I" stories per se. Unless such a story says something particularly cogent about Wikipedia culture, what really matters is, How does this affect readers of Wikipedia, the general public, or the people written about in Wikipedia?

[Kumioko]

This place is not "Son of AN/I".

But of course it is...

RfB

Well, I have never seen that as its purpose. Nor, for that matter, do I recall you ever using it in that manner.

I have generally little interest in "someone done me wrong at AN/I" stories per se. Unless such a story says something particularly cogent about Wikipedia culture, what really matters is, How does this affect readers of Wikipedia, the general public, or the people written about in Wikipedia?

Wel for what its worth what happened to me is absolutely a direct result of the degredation of the Wikipedia culture by POV pushers and corruption. If a few miscreants and abusive editors/admins have the ability of launching a lonterm editor off the site, then imagine how many new editors they push away that do not have the contribution history.

[Randy from Boise]

And the problem is the worst 10 are some of the most active on the site.

@Keifer, we are going to have to agree to disagree on Andy. Andy does some good work, but he is often a jerk and lives up to his name of being Grumpy. I also do not agree he is the best admin at anything. Again, he is an admin and has some virtues, but those virtues are cancelled out with his I am better than you attitude. Lets remember, I did some good work too and no one cares about that either.

Mr. Brown doesn't think much of this site, as I read his comments, because some people on this site are intent to out as many editors as possible, use inappropriate insults and the like against Wikipedia editors. My focus has generally been directed at abusive admins or more specifically the abusive environment that the admin cadre represent. Many of the admins started off good but they became a product of the environment becoming more abusive as time goes on. Then you get admins like AGK, Sandstein and most of the rest of the arbcom who feel they are above the law, policy doesn't apply to them and they literally do whatever they want with no oversight.

Andy is not an administrator, nor could he ever pass an RFA.

RfB

[enwikibadscience]

Really I question whether just the act of characterizing certain participants as "assholes" doing "bullshit" and excluding them, that that is the act of the true asshole, but really it is not useful for people to think in these terms. Communities need policy and evidence-based processes with a reviewable record if they are going to go and exclude people. Otherwise the real jerks like Dennis Brown and Beeblebrox and Floquenbeam and Bwilkins gravitate to positions of authority and bully people like mad.

Dennis Brown is one of the best administrators at WP. He is an anti-cabalist, not a cabalist. You are confused.

I say I know him better than you, and I at least provided an explanation a couple posts above for my opinion. He is among the most heinous and most damaging and most bullying of administrators, and he's made the worse by the fact that he fronts like some Solomonic wiseman. There may be some things I'm confused about, not this.

You are so not confused about this. He is a malicious and petty bully, the worst of the worst. Anti-cabalist? Just look at the cabal circling their wagons around Dennis to protect him when revelations of his bullying are made.

[Triptych]

Dennis Brown is one of the best administrators at WP. He is an anti-cabalist, not a cabalist. You are confused.

I say I know him better than you, and I at least provided an explanation a couple posts above for my opinion. He is among the most heinous and most damaging and most bullying of administrators, and he's made the worse by the fact that he fronts like some Solomonic wiseman. There may be some things I'm confused about, not this.

You are so not confused about this. He is a malicious and petty bully, the worst of the worst. Anti-cabalist? Just look at the cabal circling their wagons around Dennis to protect him when revelations of his bullying are made.

Yeah, Randy feels loyalty to Dennis because Dennis sponsored his request for adminship. I don't know how that worked out specifically but I just looked and the Wikipedia account Randy associates here at Wikipedia is not an admin. Similarly, while I couple here have pointed out, and I acknowledged, Dennis was against Arbcom's complaining to Kumioko's employer. But, again, how did that work out? Jimbo endorsed it, and no-one has refuted the practice.

I haven't forgotten how Dennis falsely and contemptuously blocked you Enwiki, and in case you're wondering does he still do such things, yes, I saw him abusively and without evidence or a care in the world blocking some other victim a couple or few weeks ago. He is a cyberbully, and the personification of the WP:AN/ANI set.

[Vigilant]

Dennis Brown is one of the best administrators at WP. He is an anti-cabalist, not a cabalist. You are confused.

I say I know him better than you, and I at least provided an explanation a couple posts above for my opinion. He is among the most heinous and most damaging and most bullying of administrators, and he's made the worse by the fact that he fronts like some Solomonic wiseman. There may be some things I'm confused about, not this.

You are so not confused about this. He is a malicious and petty bully, the worst of the worst. Anti-cabalist? Just look at the cabal circling their wagons around Dennis to protect him when revelations of his bullying are made.

Yeah, Randy feels loyalty to Dennis because Dennis sponsored his request for adminship. I don't know how that worked out specifically but I just looked and the Wikipedia account Randy associates here at Wikipedia is not an admin. Similarly, while I couple here have pointed out, and I acknowledged, Dennis was against Arbcom's complaining to Kumioko's employer. But, again, how did that work out? Jimbo endorsed it, and no-one has refuted the practice.

I haven't forgotten how Dennis falsely and contemptuously blocked you Enwiki, and in case you're wondering does he still do such things, yes, I saw him abusively and without evidence or a care in the world blocking some other victim a couple or few weeks ago. He is a cyberbully, and the personification of the WP:AN/ANI set.

Dennis reminds me of Smeagol.
It's a sad story, but we know how it turns out.