User talk:Crash Dennis

Talk pages[edit]

Please read wp:bludgeon.Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. It is hard not to repeat oneself, when one is being continually ignored regarding key points. Crash Dennis (talk) 15:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also you might want to read wp:spa, and wp:not.Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just did. What concerns you about my participation here? As far as I can tell, my participation is perfectly legitimate, and nobody yet has any grounds to limit or indeed stop my access. Crash Dennis (talk) 15:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You only seem to be here for one reason.Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also going to ask you to read wp:forumshop and really consider your next move.Slatersteven (talk) 13:11, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And I will ask you to consider whether me using a noticeboard I was directed to, having first raised the issue on the article talk page, is a case of forum shopping at all. What my "next move" will be after that, can concern you if or when I make it. Why are you even using such hostile language? Crash Dennis (talk) 15:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply above, you have expended a huge amount of effort to disagree with everyone on one topic (And a very narrow aspect of that topic).Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you perhaps need to go back and review how many words and how much media coverage was expended on this controversy the first time around, to put my contribution thus far into proper perspective. It is not a narrow issue by any stretch of the imagination. It arguably stands as one of those few test cases in whether Wikipedia can be trusted at all. Can it detect and remove (or adequately green light) potential fraud in terms of misuse of presumed reliable sources, even after there was a first attempt to do the exact same thing as this source does and it was found the guy who literally said "I wrote the book on the subject" was in fact lying. My participation is legitimate, it is for a serious cause, one that is eminently beneficial to Wikipedia, critical even, and has thus far barely distracted any of you from whatever it is you might think is more important, should you seriously believe this is not. Crash Dennis (talk) 16:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a friendly rather than formal warning, if you do not drop this and find something else to edit you are going to end up before the beak and it will not go well for you.Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a formal warning to stop trying to harass me off of this issue and into something you would rather I work on. For the time being I am here to settle this issue, if you're done with the debate, it is you who should go elsewhere. That noticeboard does not exist for your personal use, it is to bring the issue to the attention of people who weren't already involved. That isn't you. You've said your piece, it is you who is becoming repetitive and dominating the discussion now, and so if you're not willing to defend it anymore, stand aside and see if others can. I am off to highlight just how irrelevant this attribution argument really is. If that upsets you, sure, try and find someone to stop me, I hope they know their responsibilities, because I'll not take any abuse of process lightly. Crash Dennis (talk) 18:11, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough.Slatersteven (talk) 18:15, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did warn you.Slatersteven (talk) 11:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing in what you said that relates to this block at all. Other than your undoubted pleasure that if it stays, you have no need to defend your obviously false argument that attribution absolves all sins and covers Wikipedia in all cases. It does not. If IUPAC are victims of academic fraud here, or even just made a mistake, they are covered, relatively speaking, because like it or not, what I've said about their exposure in such a scenario, is the truth. An academic journal is an academic journal. A book from an academic press is a book from an academic press. A promotional competition with hundreds of entrants and publishing indistinguishable from that seen in the press releases around this person that are already known to be inaccurate (unless, for example, black is a synonym for African-American in the science classes you took) but which are gobbled up by mainstream media, is neither a journal or book. It is not even a news release. You've got written rules here governing source assessment that make it absolutely clear what you should be doing before publishing anything here, namely, demonstrating defensible critical thought surrounding the specific use of a specific source for a specific scenario. You should never ever be assuming infallibility, not even for books or journals. The Wikipedia corporation is covered, the rules are sensible for their purposes, so it's not their problem at all if this blows up and they can show their part in any harm that can be laid at their door as a massive publisher, with increasing market dominance in the field of female scientist biographies, is because the rules were ignored, aside from the negative publicity of course. What matters here is what the editors, people like you, said and did, as far as assessing the results of the rules not being followed. And now I am fully aware of the local custom of speech, unfortunately my thesis has to be terminated there. Crash Dennis (talk) 16:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have be no desire to see you blocked if I did I would have reported (not warned you) you.Slatersteven (talk) 16:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have no idea who reported me, but I'd say unless they want to come forward and defend your honour, you're gonna have to live with the fact that all the evidence points to you being very likely to have been the person waiting for any opportunity to shut me up and make this whole issue of the reliability of that one single IUPAC source, and therefore the existence of that biography at all, just go away. Crash Dennis (talk) 16:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am gona suggest no one reported you, an admin saw what you were up to and decided to step in uninvited. You are doing yourself no favours here. This is my last comment, I have tried to help and you have just acted the goat.Slatersteven (talk) 16:40, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jess Wade took a dump in your mouth, GRuben added some topping, and you did nothing. You could never have helped me, even if we assume you genuinely think that was what you were doing. Crash Dennis (talk) 21:19, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The Clarice Phelps article is on my watchlist so I saw your posts on the talkpage. I did not receive a "report" or complaint from anyone. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:42, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you say so. Given your reaction to my post, as I've explained, it is easy to picture a scenario where you were alerted to the post by someone else, and you have decided that it might be best if I not know their identity. Had you approached this matter differently, well, maybe I'd have not even considered that possibility. Crash Dennis (talk) 17:16, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

I have blocked your account indefinitely because this post constitutes harassment and makes implicit threats, including references to the possibility of seeking adverse publicity against a specific editor and potentially damaging her employment. Threats of this nature are prohibited and have been for many years (see Wikipedia:Harassment#Threats and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch#Threats). If you would like to appeal this block, you may do so using the procedures explained at Wikipedia:Appealing a block. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Crash Dennis (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I apologize and accept what I wrote can be considered a threat as defined by written Wikipedia policy and internal governance precedent, and I understand this sort of speech is prohibited on Wikipedia (while noting that outside of Wikipedia it is allowed by the U.S. constitution, Wikipedia being governed by the law of California), and so I happily commit to in future making sure I do not speak my mind freely here on matters of public record where it might lead Wikipedia editors to fear real world consequences for their careers or standing as public figures, as a result of their documented Wikipedia activities leading to negative media coverage in newspapers of public record in their home territories. In mitigation, I would like it recognized that what GRuben wrote was essentially an invitation for discussion of that nature, and given what he wrote and the result, in hindsight, can probably be seen as a deliberate attempt to entrap a novice editor who, until this reaction, was unaware of how tightly regulated speech is on Wikipedia. Please remove this block so I can resume the important work of improving the Clarice Phelps biography, and thereafter, any other issue that takes my interest. On a final point, I do find it strange that the approach to such a conditional threat being made here is to trigger the condition, but I do recognize it is difficult to know how best to react when you genuinely think an editor's real life career is at stake, to perhaps take the alternative path and see if the threat couldn't have simply been withdrawn after a calm discussion on a peer to peer basis, all Wikipedians being equal. I'm a nice guy though, it's my nature not to react to being placed in a hostile situation, with a hostile act of my own. Regards, Dennis. Crash Dennis (talk) 15:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were not tricked into making a threat. Also, your editing is similar to Alex Dunbarton (talk · contribs). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I am gona say I think the above is not quite only about you enough.Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcasm? I read the guide, I'm not supposed to be talking about anyone else in the appeal, it has to be all about me. Which is fine, I've taken personal responsibility for my mistakes all my life. Crash Dennis (talk) 16:15, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

OK, I think that's enough disruption from you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:22, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The blocking reason is this text (it's part of a much longer message so I'm quoting it):

Now, if I really wanted to make an impact on her personally, I could take this to a British newspaper, perhaps one that is looking for any sort of dirt on Wikipedia, such as the Daily Mail. That couldn't be used as a source here, but you can imagine say the Daily Telegraph extracting the factual details, fact checking it, and putting their own byline to it, an expose of a high profile activist Wikipedian as a deliberate flouter of core Wikipedia principles, including the ones that ask its people to look inward and reflect on their own behaviour. That's the sort of coverage that could really interfere with both her Wikipedia activism, and indeed her actual job.
— Crash Dennis, [1]

The blocking reason was the policy against threats: "Threatening another person is considered harassment. This includes any real-world threats, such as threats of harm, and threats to disrupt a person's work on Wikipedia."

Talking about another editor while not directly addressing them typically doesn't make for a healthy discussion. That being said, what is a threat? What if Dennis mailed a link to the discussion to the Daily Mail. What if the Daily Mail ran that as a story? What if the Daily Telegraph took the core of that story and ran their own? What if that interfered with her activity on Wikipedia and perhaps her job?

Note that number of "ifs" there. But what if? Well, that would make Dennis a snitch. Except the information is already public anyway. If the whole chain of events were to actually play out as described above, would you blame Dennis for the outcome? Saying "What! I'm calling the police!" in response to a user who claims to have robbed a bank is also a threat. Technically a reason to block, but I doubt that would actually happen.

What Dennis said can be considered harassment. It is unlikely to help any discussion forward. Calling it a threat makes it sound bigger than it really is, even if technically true. I'm only commenting on procedure/wording here, not calling for an unblock. I would recommend future unblock request reviewing admins not to stare blindly at the word "threat" though, which is a rather broad term. Instead look at the actual offense and judge based on that. Personally I would reserve the word "threat" for more severe cases. Using it here makes the word lose some of its meaning. "harassment" is enough. - Alexis Jazz 18:04, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]