Dennis Brown, admin-about-town

Bezdomni · Unread post by **Bezdomni** » Fri Dec 08, 2017 6:35 pm

Kumioko wrote:No need for a Journalist to debase themselves reporting on issues no one in the world outside the community and us critics really cares about.

Well, it might be safer than doing heavy-duty investigative work into the financial cabals...

Dennis Brown · Unread post by **Dennis Brown** » Fri Dec 08, 2017 6:53 pm

Kumioko wrote:
Dennis Brown wrote:
Bezdomni wrote:I see there's no simple page on the ICIJ (T-H-L). Maybe that needs some fixin'. ^^

I also see that James Marshall Y got blocked and that the GMG weighed into the RfC discussion colorfully.
He could have been blocked at any time, by me or anyone else. In this case, it was more effective to let some of his BS play through and demonstrate that it isn't about me, the community as a whole didn't support him or his ideas. Nor did they believe his claims of not being a sock.

Simply claiming you are a journalist doesn't convey special privilege, nor should it. Any idiot with a wordpress blog can claim they are journalists, and many do. I would also note that the original "journalist" account went to great lengths to hide themselves, via CU, by a proxy that was blocked in an unrelated case. Real journalists don't do that, there is no need.

I would note that often when a block is made, there is information that the public doesn't know about. As the blocking admin, it kind of sucks because you often hear people complain and whine, yet they don't understand they don't have enough information to understand the situation. CUs get questioned less about this, although we all know the CU tools are very limited and far from conclusive in many cases.
Let's be honest here, most "real" journalists wouldn't waste their time reporting on Wikipedia anyway. They have better scandals to report on at the moment than an out of date, aging family of websites with dwindling communities and reducing relevance.

The site/community already has a well known reputation of abuse and hostility towards it's editors so that's not news and none of the long list of other problems are going to have enough shock effect in todays media to make the paper. No need for a Journalist to debase themselves reporting on issues no one in the world outside the community and us critics really cares about.

Not exactly how I would put it, but I agree on the basic part. There is no reason to create an account just to talk to people who do not have email enabled (ie: they don't want to be contacted to begin with), then hide behind a proxy server, hide behind a fake name. Basically, no journalist would do that. A troll would.

Plenty of real journalists have written about Wikipedia. I've been contacted a couple of times, I've politely declined to be interviewed. I'm not there for politics, just to make an encyclopedia. They were professional in how they handled it. This guy wasn't, and continues to not be, which of course proves he isn't a real journalist and likely just some hack with a blog, if that.

No Ledge · Unread post by **No Ledge** » Fri Dec 08, 2017 7:35 pm

This three-edit-wonder hasn't yet been blocked for "not being here", but on the other hand they launched a robust debate.

I've come around to Dennis' POV on this. I give people a longer leash than most, but... c'mon, the consensus was obvious and this guy was wanting it extended for a full 30 days. I don't have very sensitive sock radar, but even I recognize that this one morphed the shark. I didn't know that Dennis has check-user privileges.

Dennis Brown · Unread post by **Dennis Brown** » Fri Dec 08, 2017 7:54 pm

No Ledge wrote:This three-edit-wonder hasn't yet been blocked for "not being here", but on the other hand they launched a robust debate.

I've come around to Dennis' POV on this. I give people a longer leash than most, but... c'mon, the consensus was obvious and this guy was wanting it extended for a full 30 days. I don't have very sensitive sock radar, but even I recognize that this one morphed the shark. I didn't know that Dennis has check-user privileges.

I don't have CU privs. Not really looking for any extra bits anyway. I do know a lot of CUs. They can't tell me everything, but they can say what they would say in an SPI, and nothing I would ever release would link them to a real world person. That is something they should be doing themselves.

And I do have well over 1000 sock blocks with only one obvious error (I did apologize sincerely, they weren't impressed, that is all I can do). I clerked at SPI for some time, which helps you learn how all that works and you do develop a bit of a nose for socks. When someone "new" knows policy and now RFCs work, etc., it is pretty obvious they aren't really new. That doesn't always mean socking, as there are legitimate reasons to have a secret acct. This just wasn't one of those cases.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Fri Dec 08, 2017 8:47 pm

At least you apologized so I'll give you credit where do for that, a lot of the CU's and even your peers wouldn't do that. They are infallible.:-)

Dennis Brown · Unread post by **Dennis Brown** » Fri Dec 08, 2017 9:31 pm

Kumioko wrote:At least you apologized so I'll give you credit where do for that, a lot of the CU's and even your peers wouldn't do that. They are infallible.:-)

There is absolutely no way you can be an admin and not make mistakes. I've apologized a few times in fact. About half the time, it isn't accepted, more vitriol is poured on, and I just walk away. There are several admin who I think don't need to be admin, but even then, most of their actions are reasonable. Some people are just going to hate admin or anyone who is seen as an "authority figure", and you just can't win. So you just walk away. At the end of the day, someone has to do the dirty work and mistakes are going to be made from time to time. There are a few non-admin that I would love to see take a walk in the admin's shoes for a month or two. It's easy to be a critic. It's easy to avoid all criticism too, I suppose, by being an admin that does nothing. We have hundreds of those.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Sat Dec 09, 2017 3:36 am

Oh don't get me wrong, I agree everyone makes mistakes and even I am not saying admins should be perfect, but too many think they are and nothing is done about it. I could name several but Floquenbeam bubbles right to the top of that list for me. His way o apologizing is telling editors to F off! They no longer have the temperment to be an admin

Dennis Brown · Unread post by **Dennis Brown** » Sat Dec 09, 2017 3:36 pm

Kumioko wrote:Oh don't get me wrong, I agree everyone makes mistakes and even I am not saying admins should be perfect, but too many think they are and nothing is done about it. I could name several but Floquenbeam bubbles right to the top of that list for me. His way o apologizing is telling editors to F off! They no longer have the temperment to be an admin

Not defending anyone, but it is actually quite easy to get cynical as admin. I think that was the case with BWilkins/DangerousPanda. I think his threshold got too low, and while he was generally a likable guy, he became a bit too much of a hard ass as admin. Wikipedia is addicting, I truly believe that, which is why I take regular extended breaks. I've found myself getting frustrated more than happy there, and started taking the long breaks to offset it. Usually a few months at a time. If you deal with behavioral problems there, I think this is especially true. I feel better taking regular breaks, keeping me from getting too emotionally involved, and (hopefully) it keeps me more objective and calm in dealing with issues. I used to think "I can make a difference" but my attitude has migrated more towards "I can help out", and I think that helps. You want to fix things, but I've learned all I can do is chip away at the problems, and I just accept I can't be everything to everyone.

mynameisnotdave · Unread post by **mynameisnotdave** » Sat Dec 09, 2017 6:23 pm

Dennis Brown wrote:
Kumioko wrote:Oh don't get me wrong, I agree everyone makes mistakes and even I am not saying admins should be perfect, but too many think they are and nothing is done about it. I could name several but Floquenbeam bubbles right to the top of that list for me. His way o apologizing is telling editors to F off! They no longer have the temperment to be an admin
Not defending anyone, but it is actually quite easy to get cynical as admin. I think that was the case with BWilkins/DangerousPanda. I think his threshold got too low, and while he was generally a likable guy, he became a bit too much of a hard ass as admin. Wikipedia is addicting, I truly believe that, which is why I take regular extended breaks. I've found myself getting frustrated more than happy there, and started taking the long breaks to offset it. Usually a few months at a time. If you deal with behavioral problems there, I think this is especially true. I feel better taking regular breaks, keeping me from getting too emotionally involved, and (hopefully) it keeps me more objective and calm in dealing with issues. I used to think "I can make a difference" but my attitude has migrated more towards "I can help out", and I think that helps. You want to fix things, but I've learned all I can do is chip away at the problems, and I just accept I can't be everything to everyone.

I suggest that every admin should, from now on, receive a 'cute kitten' kill switch. In the event of a mix of power-hungriness and resentment, press button! It would lock down their computer and confine them to watching videos of cute kittens on YouTube for one hour, for a bit of a calm-down.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Sat Dec 09, 2017 9:03 pm

Dennis Brown wrote:
Kumioko wrote:Oh don't get me wrong, I agree everyone makes mistakes and even I am not saying admins should be perfect, but too many think they are and nothing is done about it. I could name several but Floquenbeam bubbles right to the top of that list for me. His way o apologizing is telling editors to F off! They no longer have the temperment to be an admin
Not defending anyone, but it is actually quite easy to get cynical as admin. I think that was the case with BWilkins/DangerousPanda. I think his threshold got too low, and while he was generally a likable guy, he became a bit too much of a hard ass as admin. Wikipedia is addicting, I truly believe that, which is why I take regular extended breaks. I've found myself getting frustrated more than happy there, and started taking the long breaks to offset it. Usually a few months at a time. If you deal with behavioral problems there, I think this is especially true. I feel better taking regular breaks, keeping me from getting too emotionally involved, and (hopefully) it keeps me more objective and calm in dealing with issues. I used to think "I can make a difference" but my attitude has migrated more towards "I can help out", and I think that helps. You want to fix things, but I've learned all I can do is chip away at the problems, and I just accept I can't be everything to everyone.

As the old addage goes, "Absolute power corrupts absolutely". Some can handle it and some can't. It's only human nature that when there are no checks and balances and no one watching the ones in control become more overbearing and authoritarian.

If the WMF or some group in the project were slapping admins hands when they step out of line, then they wouldn't do it as much and the project in general would be a much better place. As it stands, there is no conduct controls of the admins and they are allowed to do as they want as long as their actions do't affect other admins.

AndyTheGrump · Unread post by **AndyTheGrump** » Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:15 pm

Kumioko wrote: As the old addage goes, "Absolute power corrupts absolutely". Some can handle it and some can't. It's only human nature that when there are no checks and balances and no one watching the ones in control become more overbearing and authoritarian.

If the WMF or some group in the project were slapping admins hands when they step out of line, then they wouldn't do it as much and the project in general would be a much better place. As it stands, there is no conduct controls of the admins and they are allowed to do as they want as long as their actions do't affect other admins.

Wikipedia admins don't have 'absolute power'. Not even remotely.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Sun Dec 10, 2017 12:24 am

AndyTheGrump wrote:
Kumioko wrote: As the old addage goes, "Absolute power corrupts absolutely". Some can handle it and some can't. It's only human nature that when there are no checks and balances and no one watching the ones in control become more overbearing and authoritarian.

If the WMF or some group in the project were slapping admins hands when they step out of line, then they wouldn't do it as much and the project in general would be a much better place. As it stands, there is no conduct controls of the admins and they are allowed to do as they want as long as their actions do't affect other admins.
Wikipedia admins don't have 'absolute power'. Not even remotely.

The absolute power analogy comes from the fact that it's nearly impossible to desysop one, takes a month and hours to do, almost never happens and when it does it's only after years of problems and nearly always only when their actions affects another admin. I cannot even recall a case where one was desysopped because they were abusing/trolling/harassing an editor and that happens all the time.

When you have admins like Floquenbeam telling editors routinely to F off, others actively trolling editors, blocking editors with no proof or nothing more than speculation...etc. That is a problem and that is what creates the hostile culture the project has now.

CrowsNest · Unread post by **CrowsNest** » Sun Dec 10, 2017 4:51 am

Dennis Brown wrote:
Bezdomni wrote:I see there's no simple page on the ICIJ (T-H-L). Maybe that needs some fixin'. ^^

I also see that James Marshall Y got blocked and that the GMG weighed into the RfC discussion colorfully.
He could have been blocked at any time, by me or anyone else. In this case, it was more effective to let some of his BS play through and demonstrate that it isn't about me, the community as a whole didn't support him or his ideas. Nor did they believe his claims of not being a sock.

Wow. You're really gonna try that? You screamed for this guy to be blocked as a sock from the very beginning. Everybody ignored you, so you had a little sulk, then miraculously, two members of this forum turned up to swiftly block and decline an appeal. Neither mentions socking, but they can't have not seen it being mentioned here and there, by you Dennis. And finally, as they looked like being on the verge of a successful appeal, magically, you turn up to be the first and only admin to have ever taken admin action against this user on grounds of socking. There's something "obvious" to this all right, and it stinks.

MoldyHay · Unread post by **MoldyHay** » Sun Dec 10, 2017 4:08 pm

CrowsNest wrote:
Dennis Brown wrote:
Bezdomni wrote:I see there's no simple page on the ICIJ (T-H-L). Maybe that needs some fixin'. ^^

I also see that James Marshall Y got blocked and that the GMG weighed into the RfC discussion colorfully.
He could have been blocked at any time, by me or anyone else. In this case, it was more effective to let some of his BS play through and demonstrate that it isn't about me, the community as a whole didn't support him or his ideas. Nor did they believe his claims of not being a sock.
Wow. You're really gonna try that? You screamed for this guy to be blocked as a sock from the very beginning. Everybody ignored you, so you had a little sulk, then miraculously, two members of this forum turned up to swiftly block and decline an appeal. Neither mentions socking, but they can't have not seen it being mentioned here and there, by you Dennis. And finally, as they looked like being on the verge of a successful appeal, magically, you turn up to be the first and only admin to have ever taken admin action against this user on grounds of socking. There's something "obvious" to this all right, and it stinks.

Why are you still here?

Bezdomni · Unread post by **Bezdomni** » Sun Dec 10, 2017 10:08 pm

CrowsNest wrote: you Dennis [...] turn up to be the first and only admin to have ever taken admin action against this user on grounds of socking.

Wait, looking at the block log now it says Alex Shih also wrote about socking. I didn't remember that from the original block... are you suggesting Dennis himself changed that after the fact? (I ask because I was under the impression that admins couldn't change block records even if they were subsequently shown to be, say, incomplete. I don't think Alex Shih is going to take DB to Arbcom over it once elected even if DB did revise the block-log. I could be wrong. )

CrowsNest · Unread post by **CrowsNest** » Mon Dec 11, 2017 1:23 am

Bezdomni wrote:
CrowsNest wrote: you Dennis [...] turn up to be the first and only admin to have ever taken admin action against this user on grounds of socking.
Wait, looking at the block log now it says Alex Shih also wrote about socking. I didn't remember that from the original block... are you suggesting Dennis himself changed that after the fact? (I ask because I was under the impression that admins couldn't change block records even if they were subsequently shown to be, say, incomplete. I don't think Alex Shih is going to take DB to Arbcom over it once elected even if DB did revise the block-log. I could be wrong. )

No, it's a new entry ("changed block settings"). See the one below it for Alex. Dennis modified it to remove talk page access, so the user couldn't object to his interjection. Y'know, like people who are doing nothing wrong and are totally fine with other people reviewing their actions always do. He simply then added "obvious block evasion" onto the end of Alex's rationale. Hard to tell if the reason was because he's just lazy, or he is trying to deceive people into thinking this was part of the original block, so it doesn't look like what it is, a Dennis Brown block to make sure a Dennis Brown theory is the reason why a Dennis Brown enemy is prevented from complaining about Dennis Brown's clear and obvious violation of WP:INVOLVED.

All perfectly normal in Wikipedia land, and don't let anyone tell you it's not, especially not them nosy bastard journalists, because they will be an "obvious sock" of him, I mean me, I mean you, as well. Obviously. I'm sure he'll be along any minute to account for his actions, Dennis always accounts for his actions. Then a day later he gives a different account. But hey, don't you dare say he's not trying his hardest, this is tough work, so tough he has to take regular breaks. We should be feeling sorry for him, he's the real victim here.

Alex Shih · Unread post by **Alex Shih** » Mon Dec 11, 2017 2:50 am

Nice try, I wrote "block evasion" from the very beginning.

Tarc · Unread post by **Tarc** » Mon Dec 11, 2017 3:19 am

MoldyHay wrote:
CrowsNest wrote:
Dennis Brown wrote:
Bezdomni wrote:I see there's no simple page on the ICIJ (T-H-L). Maybe that needs some fixin'. ^^

I also see that James Marshall Y got blocked and that the GMG weighed into the RfC discussion colorfully.
He could have been blocked at any time, by me or anyone else. In this case, it was more effective to let some of his BS play through and demonstrate that it isn't about me, the community as a whole didn't support him or his ideas. Nor did they believe his claims of not being a sock.
Wow. You're really gonna try that? You screamed for this guy to be blocked as a sock from the very beginning. Everybody ignored you, so you had a little sulk, then miraculously, two members of this forum turned up to swiftly block and decline an appeal. Neither mentions socking, but they can't have not seen it being mentioned here and there, by you Dennis. And finally, as they looked like being on the verge of a successful appeal, magically, you turn up to be the first and only admin to have ever taken admin action against this user on grounds of socking. There's something "obvious" to this all right, and it stinks.
Why are you still here?

"This post was made by CrowsNest who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post."

Block it and move on, it makes the Wikipediocracy experience ever so much better.

CrowsNest · Unread post by **CrowsNest** » Mon Dec 11, 2017 3:32 am

Alex Shih wrote:Nice try, I wrote "block evasion" from the very beginning.

So you did. My eyes must be so used to seeing Dennis do stuff like this, they tricked me into thinking that's what he'd done here. Didn't screencap it, so will have to assume this isn't a devious trick. Perhaps I got misled by the fact it wasn't mentioned in the block notice, and the blocked user hadn't evidently picked it up either. TNT didn't pick up on it either. Nobody did, except Dennis, who was mighty desperate to focus everyone's attention back onto it. This is what happens when you don't do your job properly and stick around, to either answer the blocked user's queries, or correct a fellow admin's misconceptions, or just generally review your actions to see if you filed the paperwork properly. It is almost as if you felt you weren't needed. And so we're back to this, as I said in the election thread......

what's the deal with those accusations regarding collusion between you, TNT and Dennis?

Earthy Astringent · Unread post by **Earthy Astringent** » Mon Dec 11, 2017 7:26 am

What is the purpose of this thread? Dennis is a nice enough fellow, here and on Wikipedia. Has he made mistakes? Sure, and he is honest enough to own up to them.

If I had admin privileges here, I’d lock this thread or move it to the private board. Just my 2 cents.

Kingsindian · Unread post by **Kingsindian** » Mon Dec 11, 2017 7:59 am

There are sometimes threads here on specific people on Wikipedia. Like the one on Ironholds, Jytdog or Kevin Gorman (RIP). This is another one.

Usually they don't lead anywhere, but sometimes they do. They usually contain some random mudslinging, but one learns to filter out the noise. This thread is almost wholly noise, that's why I mostly ignore it.

CrowsNest · Unread post by **CrowsNest** » Mon Dec 11, 2017 8:10 am

Earthy Astringent wrote:What is the purpose of this thread? Dennis is a nice enough fellow, here and on Wikipedia. Has he made mistakes? Sure, and he is honest enough to own up to them.

If I had admin privileges here, I’d lock this thread or move it to the private board. Just my 2 cents.

I'm glad you're not the admin then. He doesn't own up to mistakes, he ignores them in the hope others dig him out of the shit. How nice he is, is irrelevant (and up for debate, it probably wouldn't be said by those who suffer at his hands). He has violated WP:INVOLVED, and you either don't care, or don't agree but want to give him a free pass because he is nice? He made several mistakes in the other incident I detailed up thread about parallel merges. Did he own up to them, or just ignore them in the hope his loveable trier act gets him off the hook? Think carefully, if you seek admin privelages here.

CrowsNest · Unread post by **CrowsNest** » Mon Dec 11, 2017 8:29 am

I'm personally still waiting for nice enough guy Dennis who never makes mistakes, to explain what he meant by this.....

Now, I know damn well you aren't stupid enough to threaten me "in the real world". You can't possibly be that stupid.

You want to explain how you would deal with this incident, if you were the board admin? How about this gem of a comment.....

This is one of the problems of WPO, some (but not all) of the members oversimplify situations and take them out of context.

You think he's talking about you? You think he would ever specify who he is throwing shade to here?

The guy has been accusing me of things I know I haven't done, and I know he cannot prove. He got away with it, because for whatever reason, when it comes to Dennis, people are prepared to dismiss these as honest mistakes, or stuff you can just ignore, as if it isn't a major part of why Wikipedia sucks. You cannot honestly make a mistake about what you accuse people of when you have zero evidence to back it up, that only ever comes from a place of malice.

Dennis has been pretty clear what he thinks about journalists who don't identify themselves to his satisfaction. Nothing he has said in that regard has support in Wikipedia policy, but nice guy Dennis Brown has never let a thing like that stop him. He just blocks to enforce his will, then blocks the people looking to demonstrate it has no support, on the specious basis that two people couldn't possibly be complaining about something he did at the same time, they are obviously one person. Obviously.

I picked not one but two recent incidents where he has ignored policy to further his own agenda. It is easy to find such things, because it is a big part of who he is, how he sees his role as an admin. And your solution to that is lock the thread and hide it? That's your audition for board admin?

Bezdomni · Unread post by **Bezdomni** » Mon Dec 11, 2017 12:06 pm

Alex Shih wrote:Nice try, I wrote "block evasion" from the very beginning.

OK. As I said, I didn't remember the original block notice with any certainty. I would be, nevertheless, interested in your input in the PageMover thread. I'm not accusing you of being in league with anyone, or of any impropriety (just to be clear); I'd just like to know why that page is so closely watched by bureaucrats & arbcom candidates.

Being stuck in the crowsnest during a storm can't be any fun. Trying to hasten the day by shouting about imagined icebergs doesn't seem likely to cause either a meltdown or collective education. I remember you got involved in the discussion of one of the Marek cases recently by referring to people as editor X, Y, Z (or 1, 2, 3), Crowsnest.

Frankly, with your knowledge of process and personality on en.wp I think this would be a better strategy than prolonged sea-lioning at Sgt. Brown... (Cf. the genderdesk blog's link (Gamer-Gate Roster) to the archived version of the sealionsofwikipedia blog. At least one of the current WPO members (Moral Hazard) seems to be complicit in pushing this metaphor forward to this day.) Are groggy sealions becoming as endangered as admin birds during this 6th extinction event? Is it the role of the sealion to educate the fish?

Unread post by **Midsize Jake** » Mon Dec 11, 2017 7:40 pm

Bezdomni wrote:Frankly, with your knowledge of process and personality on en.wp I think this would be a better strategy than prolonged sea-lioning at Sgt. Brown... (Cf. the genderdesk blog's link (Gamer-Gate Roster) to the archived version of the sealionsofwikipedia blog. At least one of the current WPO members (Moral Hazard) seems to be complicit in pushing this metaphor forward to this day.) Are groggy sealions becoming as endangered as admin birds during this 6th extinction event? Is it the role of the sealion to educate the fish?

I thought torturing of metaphors was banned by the Geneva Convention?

I realize some would say this thread has run its course, as it doesn't look like anybody is going to convince anybody else to change their mind about Mr. Brown, who really should be referred to as "Nice Guy Dennis Brown" (or "NGDB" for short) from now on, so as to distinguish him from the famous reggae musician. But I don't think we should close the thread as long as NGDB is going to continue to insert himself into these kinds of situations. Still, this particular incident (with the almost-certainly-phony "investigative reporter") has been pretty much discussed to death at this point.

Overall, we have to (IMO) accept that there are two schools of thought on this, one of them being "admin rules and formal procedures must be strictly adhered to or else the whole thing is a sham," and the other essentially being "if he looks like a duck, ban him." Also, experience can sometimes be corrosive to consistent administrative behavior. The longer you do something that has the potential to piss people off, the more people you're going to piss off. And while I know many of you disagree with me on this, my personal preference is still to focus on how the system puts people in these positions and encourages these predicaments, rather than hammer away at any particular individual.

Earthy Astringent · Unread post by **Earthy Astringent** » Mon Dec 11, 2017 7:51 pm

CrowsNest wrote:I'm personally still waiting for nice enough guy Dennis who never makes mistakes, to explain what he meant by this.....
Now, I know damn well you aren't stupid enough to threaten me "in the real world". You can't possibly be that stupid.
You want to explain how you would deal with this incident, if you were the board admin? How about this gem of a comment.....
This is one of the problems of WPO, some (but not all) of the members oversimplify situations and take them out of context.
You think he's talking about you? You think he would ever specify who he is throwing shade to here?

The guy has been accusing me of things I know I haven't done, and I know he cannot prove. He got away with it, because for whatever reason, when it comes to Dennis, people are prepared to dismiss these as honest mistakes, or stuff you can just ignore, as if it isn't a major part of why Wikipedia sucks. You cannot honestly make a mistake about what you accuse people of when you have zero evidence to back it up, that only ever comes from a place of malice.

Dennis has been pretty clear what he thinks about journalists who don't identify themselves to his satisfaction. Nothing he has said in that regard has support in Wikipedia policy, but nice guy Dennis Brown has never let a thing like that stop him. He just blocks to enforce his will, then blocks the people looking to demonstrate it has no support, on the specious basis that two people couldn't possibly be complaining about something he did at the same time, they are obviously one person. Obviously.

I picked not one but two recent incidents where he has ignored policy to further his own agenda. It is easy to find such things, because it is a big part of who he is, how he sees his role as an admin. And your solution to that is lock the thread and hide it? That's your audition for board admin?

Wikipediocracy’s mission is to criticize Wikipedia. Those that use it as a platform to extend their grudges are given some leeway (hey, we love some good drama) but at some point their participation just becomes noise and they are given the boot. I don’t need to be an admin to see the writing on the wall.

JCM · Unread post by **JCM** » Mon Dec 11, 2017 8:09 pm

I must have missed the reasoning behind lifting CrowsNest block, but if the conduct of that individual continues to be basically the same as it was prior to his block, can we maybe see the results of such conduct repeat too?

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Mon Dec 11, 2017 8:38 pm

Midsize Jake wrote:
Bezdomni wrote:Frankly, with your knowledge of process and personality on en.wp I think this would be a better strategy than prolonged sea-lioning at Sgt. Brown... (Cf. the genderdesk blog's link (Gamer-Gate Roster) to the archived version of the sealionsofwikipedia blog. At least one of the current WPO members (Moral Hazard) seems to be complicit in pushing this metaphor forward to this day.) Are groggy sealions becoming as endangered as admin birds during this 6th extinction event? Is it the role of the sealion to educate the fish?
I thought torturing of metaphors was banned by the Geneva Convention?

I realize some would say this thread has run its course, as it doesn't look like anybody is going to convince anybody else to change their mind about Mr. Brown, who really should be referred to as "Nice Guy Dennis Brown" (or "NGDB" for short) from now on, so as to distinguish him from the famous reggae musician. But I don't think we should close the thread as long as NGDB is going to continue to insert himself into these kinds of situations. Still, this particular incident (with the almost-certainly-phony "investigative reporter") has been pretty much discussed to death at this point.

Overall, we have to (IMO) accept that there are two schools of thought on this, one of them being "admin rules and formal procedures must be strictly adhered to or else the whole thing is a sham," and the other essentially being "if he looks like a duck, ban him." Also, experience can sometimes be corrosive to consistent administrative behavior. The longer you do something that has the potential to piss people off, the more people you're going to piss off. And while I know many of you disagree with me on this, my personal preference is still to focus on how the system puts people in these positions and encourages these predicaments, rather than hammer away at any particular individual.

I agree, I never had a problem with Dennis myself and although not all of the content of this thread is useful and this thread long ago ceased to be "about" Dennis, Dennis is fairly active here and gives some good insights. Keeping this thread alive, at worst, makes it easier to discuss things with him.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:55 pm

I see the purpose of this thread as showing what a particular quite active admin does, and why. It casts light on the general behaviour of admins, which is helpful to a site like this. If we could somehow get equally detailed insights into an admin regrded as highly abusive, the similarities and contrasts would certainly be educational, but of course such an admin wouldn't stand for being the star of a thread like this. All credit to Dennis for what he does in this thread and on this site generally.

CrowsNest · Unread post by **CrowsNest** » Tue Dec 12, 2017 12:59 am

Earthy Astringent wrote: Wikipediocracy’s mission is to criticize Wikipedia.

So feel free to criticise an INVOLVED block anytime you like. Or any of the other stuff that is unambiguously wrong which has been mentioned. These are not mistakes, they are deliberate acts, often advertised as having been fully planned and intended to advance a personal agenda.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Tue Dec 12, 2017 1:15 am

Poetlister wrote:I see the purpose of this thread as showing what a particular quite active admin does, and why. It casts light on the general behaviour of admins, which is helpful to a site like this. If we could somehow get equally detailed insights into an admin regrded as highly abusive, the similarities and contrasts would certainly be educational, but of course such an admin wouldn't stand for being the star of a thread like this. All credit to Dennis for what he does in this thread and on this site generally.

That shouldn't be difficult, just compare Dennis to one of these: Fram, Floquenbeam, HighinBC/Chillum, Sandstein, Courcelles, Jamesofur, AGK, Carcharoth, DJSasso or a number of others.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Tue Dec 12, 2017 1:21 am

Kumioko wrote: I agree, I never had a problem with Dennis myself and although not all of the content of this thread is useful and this thread long ago ceased to be "about" Dennis, Dennis is fairly active here and gives some good insights. Keeping this thread alive, at worst, makes it easier to discuss things with him.

This thread actually started as a spinoff from another thread in which somebody with a shard of wood up their posterior started chipping on Dennis for no good reason and I flipped it back at them.

I'd be in favor of locking the sucker myself.

RfB

CrowsNest · Unread post by **CrowsNest** » Tue Dec 12, 2017 2:00 am

Randy from Boise wrote:
Kumioko wrote: I agree, I never had a problem with Dennis myself and although not all of the content of this thread is useful and this thread long ago ceased to be "about" Dennis, Dennis is fairly active here and gives some good insights. Keeping this thread alive, at worst, makes it easier to discuss things with him.
This thread actually started as a spinoff from another thread in which somebody with a shard of wood up their posterior started chipping on Dennis for no good reason and I flipped it back at them.

Seems to me like they knew exactly what they were talking about....

Triptych wrote: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.

Of course, if this were Wikipedia, Dennis would be accusing me of being a sock of this guy, because our views are closely aligned, which he finds unpossible. In my experience, people who think Dennis is at the bottom rung of the admin competency charts, they tend to be able to go into specifics, to give examples and back their views up with regard to how they stack up to the nominal good administrator. And the people who defend him and claim he is that administrator, well, they don't.

Maybe it's just a perception issue. Dennis just shut down a report at AN/I about a potential breach by Jytdog of an ArbCom imposed topic ban, because it was filed by an IP sock. Didn't even bother to do a cursory check to see if a violation had occurred, simply because he could not 'consider the behaviour of both parties'. This has no basis in policy, and if it was a violation, Dennis would have zero defence for not acting to prevent what some poor fool has likely already expended half a year of their life proving before ArbCom was activity that is a threat to Wikipedia and demands an immediate admin reaction for any reoccurrence. He just lets it fly, in the process barring any other admin from taking action, just because he can't get his hands on the guy reporting it.

There are two types of people in this world, those who see that as an abuse of admin privelages and an act which undermines Wikipedia, and those who will applaud Dennis because he's basically sticking up for the social heirarchy model of Wikipedia, where it matters less what you do and more who you are, and the principle that there is one crime greater than any other, socking. Unsurprisingly, this is another contentious act which can in no way be brushed off as a mistake. He knows what he's doing.

Dennis Brown · Unread post by **Dennis Brown** » Wed Dec 13, 2017 2:02 am

CrowsNest wrote: blah blah blah

He knows what he's doing.

We finally agree on one point. Lots of others know exactly what I'm doing as well, you just don't seem to be one of them. Then again, I think that falls under wilful ignorance.

CrowsNest · Unread post by **CrowsNest** » Wed Dec 13, 2017 3:01 am

Dennis Brown wrote:
CrowsNest wrote: blah blah blah

He knows what he's doing.
We finally agree on one point. Lots of others know exactly what I'm doing as well, you just don't seem to be one of them. Then again, I think that falls under wilful ignorance.

I'm struggling to parse the meaning here, on account of you trying too hard to be cute or clever. But if you're trying to say I don't understand why other people support you, you're only displaying your own wilful ignorance, because I've explained that already in here. If you're trying to say I don't understand why you ignore me, then ditto. Believe me Dennis, there's not a damn thing you do that is a mystery to me.

Unread post by **Midsize Jake** » Wed Dec 13, 2017 8:28 am

CrowsNest wrote:Believe me Dennis, there's not a damn thing you do that is a mystery to me.

Statements like this will only exacerbate our problem with that "Gender Desk" lady who thinks we can surreptitiously access everybody's laptop camera whenever we want.

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Wed Dec 13, 2017 12:02 pm

Midsize Jake wrote:
CrowsNest wrote:Believe me Dennis, there's not a damn thing you do that is a mystery to me.
Statements like this will only exacerbate our problem with that "Gender Desk" lady who thinks we can surreptitiously access everybody's laptop camera whenever we want.

And that guy who thinks I'm a Nazi that controls Soviet satellites that can kill him.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Wed Dec 13, 2017 1:43 pm

Everyone knows that aluminum foil hats will protect them from that sort of thing! Just wear the hat and there won't be a problem.

CrowsNest · Unread post by **CrowsNest** » Wed Dec 13, 2017 8:01 pm

Compare and contrast Dennis' recent action with The Wordsmith, in how they dealt with an IP user reporting a possible ArbCom topic ban violation. The Wordsmith blocked Mark Bernstein for a year. Dennis refused to even look at the allegation against Jytdog.

Both cases are similar in terms of the sort of user being reported and the likelihood of them facing severe sanction due to the existing discipliniary record, and both situations potentially called for a brave admin to make a difficult block for and on behalf of ArbCom, for the good of Wikipedia. This is how you tell a good admin from a bad one, whether they make the right choice in a situation like that.

If there is anyone on this forum who has defended Dennis who would like to make the case he is the good admin in this scenario (and by extension The Wordsmith is the bad), then make it now. I'd ask Dennis to explain himself, but we know how that goes, currently he seems happy to hand these sort of queries off to his resident admirers.

Unread post by **Midsize Jake** » Wed Dec 13, 2017 8:19 pm

CrowsNest wrote:If there is anyone on this forum who has defended Dennis who would like to make the case he is the good admin in this scenario (and by extension The Wordsmith is the bad), then make it now.

They can't both be bad?

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Wed Dec 13, 2017 8:25 pm

I think you have mixed a good decision with a bad one. Personally I have long considered Mark Bernstein to basically be a troll and Arbcom shouldn't have unblocked them last time so I shall not shed tears for them being blocked again for a year. I doubt many others will either.

With that said, Jytdog is not a good admin either and is undeserving of the usual admin protections being used to shelter them. They should have been desysopped a long time ago as many on this site are already aware of. So IMO Dennis was negligent in not following up on those allegations. This is a normal action for admins though so not something specific to Dennis. As long as the admin whom the allegations are being made against hasn't done anything to a fellow admin, they will go to extraordinary lengths to justify, ignore or shelter the admin...even when it's obviously not justified in doing so. I have never really interacted much with the Wordsmith so I really don't have much opinion about them.

So not a great decision on the part of Dennis, but this is more about the cultural norms of admin conduct and not something specific to Dennis in my opinion.

TNT · Unread post by **TNT** » Wed Dec 13, 2017 8:32 pm

Kumioko wrote:... Jytdog is not a good admin either and is undeserving of the usual admin protections being used to shelter them. They should have been desysopped a long time ago as many on this site are already aware of.

Jytdog isn't an admin though?

Unread post by **Midsize Jake** » Wed Dec 13, 2017 8:37 pm

TNT wrote:
Kumioko wrote:Jytdog isn't an admin though?

You're correct - he isn't, but he does seem to have the arrogance and officiousness thing pretty much down-pat.

TNT · Unread post by **TNT** » Wed Dec 13, 2017 8:41 pm

Hey now, I don't think we're all that bad...

CrowsNest · Unread post by **CrowsNest** » Wed Dec 13, 2017 8:47 pm

Midsize Jake wrote:
CrowsNest wrote:If there is anyone on this forum who has defended Dennis who would like to make the case he is the good admin in this scenario (and by extension The Wordsmith is the bad), then make it now.
They can't both be bad?

Only if you think topic bans are bad, but of course that doesn't apply here. I'm speaking of this specific incident of course, people are free to think both are good or bad in the round, sure. But to get there, we must examine what they do in specific situations. This goes back to the point that the people who think Dennis is good, never seem prepared to deal in specifics, while everyone who thinks he is bad, have a list of examples. Here is an example.

CrowsNest · Unread post by **CrowsNest** » Wed Dec 13, 2017 8:54 pm

TNT wrote:Hey now, I don't think we're all that bad...

For all his faults, Jytdog's care for certain elements of necessary process, would frankly put you to shame, if he were ever to become an admin. Never in a million years would he decline an unblock appeal the manner you did to my alleged sock.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Wed Dec 13, 2017 8:55 pm

TNT wrote:Hey now, I don't think we're all that bad...

Not all admins are bad you're right, in fact most are fine. The problem is that a sizable portion of the most active ones are and that is problematic.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Wed Dec 13, 2017 8:56 pm

Midsize Jake wrote:
TNT wrote:Jytdog isn't an admin though?
You're correct - he isn't, but he does seem to have the arrogance and officiousness thing pretty much down-pat.

Oops, I thought he was. Guess that's what I get for not checking my sources first and trusting Wikipedia. :-)

TNT · Unread post by **TNT** » Wed Dec 13, 2017 9:01 pm

CrowsNest wrote:
TNT wrote:Hey now, I don't think we're all that bad...
For all his faults, Jytdog's care for certain elements of necessary process, would frankly put you to shame, if he were ever to become an admin. Never in a million years would he decline an unblock appeal the manner you did to my alleged sock.

shame shame shame

Christ, get over yourself

CrowsNest · Unread post by **CrowsNest** » Wed Dec 13, 2017 9:06 pm

TNT wrote:
CrowsNest wrote:
TNT wrote:Hey now, I don't think we're all that bad...
For all his faults, Jytdog's care for certain elements of necessary process, would frankly put you to shame, if he were ever to become an admin. Never in a million years would he decline an unblock appeal the manner you did to my alleged sock.
shame shame shame

Christ, get over yourself

Another example of something I imagine Jytdog the admin would never say.