Hi Dennis Brown. Thanks for semi-protecting the article Tarkhan. There are, however, 2 other users whom I - personally - suspect to be sockpuppets of banned User:Lagoo sab:

• Nasir Ghobar (talk · contribs)
• Khestwol (talk · contribs)

Compare to:

• Lagoo sab (talk · contribs)

Both seem to have the same interests as Lagoo sab, edit more or less the same articles, use the same POV sources (such as the controversial and notorious Abdul Hai Habibi), etc. I think that an admin should have a loser look at this. --Lysozym (talk) 22:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lysozym (talk · contribs): You're wrong about me. No, I'm not any of them. Khestwol (talk) 19:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm a bit short on time tonight, you probably need to file an SPI report on it. Just popping in for a few minutes. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1. I was not notified about this secret discussion. Anway, I already explained at the ANI and various other places that I'm not using multiple accounts. A few weeks ago, me and Khestwol opposed each other while editing Kushan Empire [1] and I don't even edit the same pages as these editors. Now about Lysozym, he is a sockpuppet of User:Tajik (see at the bottom of his user page), then see his long history of getting blocked. [2]
  • 2. Admins confirmed that Lysozym is on a 1RR per week as a result of ArbCom. He's now going around secretly reporting productive editors hoping to get them blocked simply because they oppose his opinion. This is bad behaviour, and what's more bad is that I think he is the only person in the world who rejects Abdul Hai Habibi as a scholar.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 12:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • • This isn't a secret discussion, it is in plain view. Since I'm an admin and SPI clerk, it is perfectly normal and acceptable to drop off concerns here for review before considering filing an official report. Most of the time, the reports are very legitimate, and I can assure you that I don't jump to conclusions and start blocking people simply based on what is left here on my doorstep. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was refering to Lysozym about reporting editors without notifing them.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 18:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is no requirement to notify if an editor brings a situation to an admin. Or even SPI for that matter. Only ANI, DRN and the official boards outside of SPI. This case I still didn't review, I'm swamped. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:47, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. And someone should explain to this user that deactivating a previous account in order to create a new global account is not sockpuppetry. Especially not in this case, since the switch was monitored by admin User:Kingturtle. If Nasir Ghobar continues this obvious lie (despite the fact that it has been explained to him more than once), he will be reported on ANI. --Lysozym (talk) 00:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of things: There is no technical way to "deactivate" an account, so how you abandon an account can either be a good way, or a confusing and problematic way. The best way is to ask an experienced admin how to do it if you need to, as to avoid sock charges. Second, do not throw the word "lie" around. That is a strong word and might be seen as a personal attack. Whether he is being dishonest or mistaken or something else, I don't claim to know, but keep it civil. There is no benefit to using inflammatory language. As for ANI, keep in mind that any time you bring someone to ANI, the conduct and activity of both people will be examined, so I don't suggest it in most circumstances. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deactivating a previous account (that has a very long history of blocks) and months later creating a fresh new account (global or not) in order to conceal is sockpuppetry. From how I see it, in February 2011 Tajik abandoned his account likely due to the many blocks and 1 revert per week previlage. It appears to me that he may have been editing anonymously. [3] In June 2011 he created a fresh new account (Lysozym) without ever deactivating the previous one [4], and since I noticed that he seeks to get me blocked. To avoid confusion, I feel that his old account (Tajik) and the new one (Lysozym) should be merged together so that everyone, especially admins, can see his prior record otherwise they will be unaware of who he is. The small tiny message at the bottom of his page is very strange because an alternate account is usually not refering to an abandoned account.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 06:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Deactivating" means "asking an admin to block a previous account" so that only the new - and global - account may be used. The previous account was not a global account and not linked to my accounts in other languages, especially the German Wikipedia and Wikimedia. This new account is a global one - I use the same name in all Wikipedia-associated projects. All of this was monitored by User:Kingturtle. You can ask him. It was no secret from the beginning on and known to all admins with whom I was in contact. My previous account was blocked since February 2011, because I was taking a Wiki-break. In June 2011 (4 months later) I decided to create this global account, contacted User:Kingturtle, told him that I do not want to activate the old account again and put a small note on my new user page, telling everyone that I used to have an old account. Nasir Ghobar aka banned User:NisarKand aka banned User:Lagoo sab simply does not understand what "sockpuppetry" means. He should stop his wrong accusations (which can easily be disproven by admin Kingturtle), keeping in mind that he himself is without any doubt another sockpuppet of banned User:Lagoo sab and is also identical with banned User:TAzimi. I do not know how to start SPI, otherwise it would have been on by now. --Lysozym (talk) 11:21, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SPI filed. Actually, filing an WP:SPI is simple enough, just follow the instructions. It sounds like you did abandon the account properly. "Deactivating" is not a word we admins usually use, hence the confusion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lysozym, some of us may be wondering why are you in pursuit of this one particular editor? It's like you want to, pardon my words, beat that person up or something. Sheeesh, I've seen many editors who have used multiple accounts and the admins just pardoned them. You just saw that with Theman244 the other day, he was using multiple IDs to edit-war and vote but he did not get blocked. I just want to know what is it that Lago/Nisar did that you not ever want to let go of him? Every where I look, I see you talking about that person over and over. I told you and others that my name is Nasir, NOT Nisar. About your action, without a doubt you tried to get rid of your old account and start as a fresh editor because obviously this is what everyone would try to do. The global account stuff is just the only excuse available to you.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 14:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So now I am even called a murderer. Great. I leave it do the admin to decide whether this is a violation of WP:PA or not ... --Lysozym (talk) 15:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't call anyone a murderer, and I've said in advance to "pardon my words". The point was to tell us why you're pursuing this one particular person. Earlier, you admitted that Greczia was sockpuppeting but I didn't see you do anything about that one. This is your admission if you forgot: "Interestingly, he is a sockpuppet-abuser .. That's why he was banned in the German Wikipedia. As for his barnstar: I have no idea what he was trying to achieve with that,".--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 19:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Nasir, you need to tone it back a notch now. It is at SPI, and I'm not one of those admins that tolerates socks if they are used abusively. To use a phrase you will be able to identify with, I'm more of a hanging judge for those that won't admit past links. If another admin didn't, ask them why. I'm also not tolerant of what you are doing here, so I strongly suggest you get civil quickly. It isn't required that we go to ANI or SPI or any other venue, I'm fully capable and authorized to take whatever action I need right here, btw. I'm open to using my talk page as a place for discussion, but it isn't a battleground. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I modified the word to "beat up" and I've said in advance to "pardon my words". I have a valid question which should be answered by him. He admitted in another discussion that another editor from Germany was in fact sockpuppeting but didn't bother to report him/her. I'm wondering what's important about this person or people that he named here. According to the record of blocks of these, I see very few blocks [5], and some of these blocks are very strange such as this >> "with an expiry time of indefinite (wish granted)" [6], and then jumps from a week to indefinite.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 19:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dwelling on the past is moot, however. Honestly, all I'm worried about is now. I've filed at his request, right now I just want people to work on improving articles, which is why we are here. I appreciate your effort, but now we all need to just write articles and let everything else go. I tell people all the time: focus on content, and if there is a dispute, use the regular channels, but keep it civil, and accept that others may not. That doesn't excuse anyone from themselves being civil. It isn't easy, but it is the best way to keep out of trouble and just be left alone to edit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The other user Nasir Ghobar is referring to is User:Greczia. He/she was reported, the sockpuppetry was confirmed and he/she is now banned - once again. As for Nasir: his edits are not merely simple disputes. He does not understand WP:SOURCE, has a clear political agenda, and he has more than once reverted to POV edits of User:Lagoo sab, for example in the article Pata Khazana. It is strange that he claims to be new, yet he not only edits the same articles as did Lagoo sab, but he is also reverting to by-gone edits of that user which he actually could not have known (except that he is reviewing every single edit of the article's history which is extremely unlikely). --Lysozym (talk) 22:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I never knew what Patha Khazana was until Lysozym told me in August. Then, a day or so, I saw Lysozym remove 5,267 words of info [7] from that article and I decided to read the article and find out what was going on, after carefully reviewing which version was neutral and better, I decided to revert Lysozym [8], and I did explain my self in the edit summary. I guess that made me a victim of circumstance cause the person who edited earlier was a blocked person. Since Lysozym claims to know then he should explain what is my political agenda?--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 00:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dennis. I see you have been asking for help with the SPI backlogs. I catch a lot of socks, and some are complex and do my best to present comprehensive cases. This led me to believe I could perhaps learn more about the process as a trainee clerk and be more active there and eventually some day help out by becoming a CU. It doesn't help however when mature, seasoned admins are told to go away, get more experience, and stop hat-collecting! Except for cases I discover, I won't be bothering. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Who the hell told you to quit collecting hats?? I would love to have you there, although I'm still technically a trainee. You don't have to be a trainee to help. The clerks do the same stuff as the non-clerk admins, except we do the paperwork, moves, merges, etc. Stuff that isn't that interesting. But patrolling and helping with cases and giving recommendations or flat out blocks, letting us shuffle the paper, it would be very much appreciated. And if you are interested in clerking, let me know, I will annoy them to no end until they do. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kudpung-Sawadee Krap! Prathet Thai an dap neung. Gents, this is another case of wiki shooting itself in the foot. Eschew self-defeating policies and those who turned away qualified and respected users willing to help. Kudpung, ie, go do it, just jump right in!PumpkinSky talk 21:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I tend to agree that jumping in is the right answer. There is no sign up sheet for patrolling admin. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also recommend getting on the IRC channel, and downloading zenmap if you are on windows, link below in the next section. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kudpung, please go to SPI and help with patrolling cases. I concur with Dennis here.
       — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most certainly not. I have an aversion to helping out on projects where I'm told I'm a hat collecting, inexperienced user. Makes me wonder in fact why I even bother spending sometimes hours researching and opening cases on the many vandal socks I discover, and concluding some I don't. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who told you that? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, who? Diff please. We're not telling you you're new, etc. PumpkinSky talk 03:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to a new user at Teahouse tonite. Her name is User:RAIDENRULES123. In looking though things after my post to her, I noticed she had pulled a sock tag off her talk page. I checked the IP that was associated with it and it sure looks like the same user (99.99999% certainty). I looked at SPI and found nothing. I know nothing of SPI and really want to know less than that, so I punt it to you. She looks like she could really be disruptive. Gtwfan52 (talk) 02:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• No doubt it is the same person. [9] vs. [10]. Dropping it here was a good move. It might be clue deficiency, but I bet your first instinct is correct. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dennis Brown. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Mojoworker (talk) 15:08, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't know me, but I ran across your program today and was over joyed by it! I cannot thank you enough for attending to this big problem on WP! You are a superstar! I just wanted to send a note of appreciation.

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Awarded to Dennis Brown 2¢ © Join WER for the wonderful Editor Retention Program he started and is promoting. Thank you so much! Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 14:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Z147

• You are certainly welcome, and thank you for the kindness and participation. The real credit goes to everyone participating and cheering each other on. Hopefully, we will create a culture of retention Wiki-wide, if we work together. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A sock of a user who you blocked for disruptive editing/trolling (see original discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive767#Request additional review of disruptive editor) has been continuing their disruption and wikilawyering on multiple talk pages which I've spotted via my watch list. They may also have other discussions elsewhere, but these are the ones of which I'm aware:

• They started here, to question my deletion of User talk:150.135.161.45: WP:DEL#Deletion without discussion?
• Not getting an answer they liked, they then went here: Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Is unbiased discussion allowed?
• Realizing WP:NPA was an obstacle to restoring the user talk page, they then posted a proposal, which I reverted per WP:RBI: in this edit at WT:NPA.
• And their most recent thread, questioning my above revert: Wikipedia talk:Editing policy#Ad hominem editing?

Personally, I believe all my actions have been appropriate; but I would appreciate your review to get a second opinion. I have blocked their most recent socks where ranges were involved that had little to no other editing; and my gut reaction is to simply blank or collapse all of the above discussions under WP:DFTT; but as the user is attempting to frame this as something personal between myself and them, I would feel more comfortable if you and anyone who is a WP:TPS were to look it over and to take whatever action you may feel is appropriate (if any) on the existing discussion threads. If you feel I should re-raise this an WP:ANI, let me know and I'll copy this discussion over there. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking for a review of your actions? You're fine. Removing posts made by someone evading a block is well within anyone's purview, and blocking the socks whack-a-mole style is sometimes necessary. No worries. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate the verification on my existing actions. Although I should have phrased my questions more clearly.

There were actually two questions: 1) do others feel my actions thus far have been appropriate, and 2) should the existing threads the IP has going be left open, collapsed, or deleted?

For the second question, I support closing/collapsing the threads under WP:DFTT ... but I did not feel comfortable doing it myself as the IP is trying to frame this as something personal between me and them - so I would prefer other parties to decide if it's appropriate to delete or collapse those threads. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to ignore such posts, or simply remove them (with <post by blocked editor removed> if part of a larger thread), depending on content. I see no reason to hat posts made by a blocked or banned editor. But that's me. I tend to handle such things more on a case by case than hard and fast rules. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • In this situation, I had already told Monty that those guys were socks, i was logged into an alt, but he didnt' do anything. The IPv6 left a note asking me about the block here on my talk page. As to the two range blocks I did, they got overturned an unblocked as being NAT and not open, and heavily used. Whack a mole is the only option. Hatting, redacting or removing any material by a blocked evading editor is fine, particularly if we aren't talking about quality article content. Of course they are making it personal, they want you to look involved, but as long as you are doing what any admin would do (I say yes here), and doing it transparently (bringing it here makes that obvious) then I don't see a problem even if you were involved. Like you, sometimes I will ask another admin to review, so make sure it is clear that it is being done in an open way, so you are welcome to do so any time. As you can see, even when I'm tied, there is always others ready to pitch in, to which I'm grateful. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and feedback. I am surprised the two ranges you blocked would have been unblocked as "heavily used". I did a review of all contributions by the two ranges prior to reporting them to ANI originally - the only contributions by 150.135.72.0/24 in 2012 were by the sock; while 150.135.161.0/24 had roughly 15-20 edits in all of 2012 that were not obviously related to the sock, while the sock had over 70 edits from that second range just in Aug-Sept. When I look at the block log for those ranges, it shows the block but not the removal, was the overturn/removal done at a system level outside of the block log? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:20, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See "unlock on hold" above a few notches. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay. Those look to be IP addresses outside of the range blocks for this particular sock. Those both geolocate to somewhere in Germany, while the sock here primarily uses IPs tied to "iclibrary" host ids at the University of Arizona. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know you are busy (no doubt as a result of being such an effective admin), but I wondered if you could look at this in conjunction with this? Boundarylayer (talk · contribs) is effectively a single-purpose account trying to insert pro-nuclear material onto multiple articles, and remove material that supports other energy sources. It is usually really badly-written, very biased, and often poorly sourced. His intentions are good but he really, really doesn't get how we work here. I have tried to reach out but am getting exasperated at this point. I don't want to just block (though I feel like that cannot be far away) and I would like a second opinion. If you don't have time that is ok too. Thanks if you can help. --John (talk) 22:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, butter me up then ask me a favor. I've been married almost 20 years, I know that trick ;) I will take a quick look. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heh, I deserved that. Very grateful for any time you can give it. --John (talk) 22:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I already replied there, as the issue isn't overly huge yet but still obvious. Hopefully hearing a more detailed explanation from an uninvolved admin will get him to understand a little better. Like many others, he sees Wikipedia as "a website about stuff", and not an encyclopedia. I wouldn't be in a hurry to take action, and that would depend on his reaction and acceptance that his editing style is problematic, even if in good faith. Maybe me backing up your opinion will be enough to get him to slow down, use talk more and work in the right direction. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, I appreciate the quick response. --John (talk) 23:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • No problem. Keep me in the loop if you need to, I'm hoping we can solve this smoothly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dennis I am the Author of the recently deleted APA Tactical. Would it be possible for you to give me some help in User Space to get the article up to standards. Its not a question of promotion as the System is private and for Law Enforcement use only. The article was meant to document what has been an important change in Law Enforcement one that seeks to avoid methods which may cause further violence such as chemical dispersal methods and big stick mentality. I am also new to the Wiki interface so this led to some confusion in how to meet all the required standards. Appreciate any assistance that can be provided. Simon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SRobinsonOP (talk • contribs) 23:57, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dennis I am the Author of the recently deleted APA Tactical. Would it be possible for you to give me some help in User Space to get the article up to standards. Its not a question of promotion as the System is private and for Law Enforcement use only. The article was meant to document what has been an important change in Law Enforcement one that seeks to avoid methods which may cause further violence such as chemical dispersal methods and big stick mentality. I am also new to the Wiki interface so this led to some confusion in how to meet all the required standards. Appreciate any assistance that can be provided. Simon.SRobinsonOP (talk) 00:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Give me the exact title the article(s) was under when it was deleted, and as long as it wasn't deleted for copyright violations or BLP issues, I can provide a copy in your user space, to allow you to work it up to Wikipedia standards. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

":" Thanks Dennis the Article posted was called APA Tactical and a page which was put up prior which is being considered for Deletion is Antagonist Perpetrated Aggression. Thanks for your assistance. SRobinsonOP (talk) 07:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored a copy at User:SRobinsonOP/APA Tactical. As for the other AFD, you need to add a note in that discuss asking the closing admin to userfy the article if deleted, and then they will do so at that time. It can't be moved while it is still live. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:23, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dennis. I may contact you again once I have put some more work into it just to make sure its okay if that's agreeable. Thanks for your time. SRobinsonOP (talk) 23:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. You might consider WP:AFC, which isn't the fastest but is more guaranteed to stay if it passes there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dennis this shows my ignorance of the system here but my user space does not seem to exist! I went to start to work on the Articles and I am being told this Wikipedia does not have a user page with this exact name. In general, this page should be created and edited by User:SRobinsonOP. If in doubt, please verify that "SRobinsonOP" exists. Sorry to bother you with this but you have been the most helpful by far.SRobinsonOP (talk) 14:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it doesn't exist because you haven't created it yet :) Just add some content in the box below when you go that page, add a summary, save. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Not to barge in here, but I think you might not be looking at the right page. The draft is at User:SRobinsonOP/APA Tactical. Y'see, your userspace isn't just your userpage (User:SrobinsonOP, which is the page that doesn't exist), it also includes any subpages of that, which is what the "User:SRobinsonOP/" part in front of the APA Tactical draft means. Any page that starts with "User:SRobinsonOP/" is going to be within your userspace. Does that help? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank goodness for talk page stalkers. Correct. That article I userfied is a subpage of your user space, a folder within a folder. It won't be linked on your regular user page unless you add a link, like adding this exact text

[[User:SRobinsonOP/APA Tactical]]

on your user page, a common thing to do. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you both I will now start trying upload documents to back up the page.SRobinsonOP (talk) 06:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

luna-becomes-subject-of-wiki-war

Gtwfan52 (talk) 00:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It is still interesting to me that they get the nuances wrong about Wikipedia. I guess I've been here so long, but every article I read about Wikipedia, it is almost obvious that the author is having to be told about how Wikipedia works by someone else and there isn't an understanding of how it really works. Plus, not all of us are anonymous, and some of the best minds in their fields edit here as well. But it looks like they tried to present a fair story, and effort counts for something. Thanks for pointing to the article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dennis Brown. I've seen you around and have always found your opinions valid and thoughtful, so I thought I'd try to get some feedback from you on my contributions. I tried an editor review, but a few weeks later, nothing has happened and I considered self-nominating my self for RFA with the intention of getting some feedback/constructive criticism, but I felt like that was somewhat disingenuous so I decided to ask a user willing to consider nominating people for RFA. I know right off the bat my edit count is low, but recently (the past month or so) I have gotten much more involved and hope to stay that way. So if you wouldn't mind taking a minute to give me some feedback, I would really appreciate it. Thanks in advance. (I'm watching your page so no need for talkback) Go Phightins! (talk) 03:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can see my other admin reviews and criteria at User:Dennis Brown/RfA. I notice you have around 1300 edits [11], which is going to be way too low for a successful run at RfA. While there is no official criteria, my experience has been that an editor needs a minimum of 5000 edits to be taken seriously at RfA and there are many people that will instantly oppose if someone has less. I have seen you a few times around and my memory is that it was a positive impression, but you need more general experience. Another page to look at is [12], which gives interesting stats, including only 135 edits in Wikipedia space. (read the OPTIN information at the bottom, and opt in) My comparison, I had a few thousand when I went for RfA, and over 18,000 total edits, but admittedly, I waited longer than I needed as I wasn't interested in admin previously.

Getting the admin bit takes a few different things. One, a good, solid understanding of the overall policies, plus demonstrating you know how to look them up when you aren't completely sure, so you don't act out of school in a situation. You also have to show an ability to edit, create or recreate articles and can understand the trials and tribulations of editing in a corroborative environment, and lastely, the ability to use good judgement, which means patience, tolerance and the ability to handle heated and difficult discussions without becoming incivil. To do all this takes time and edits, which is why most won't consider a candidate unless they have the 5k edits and one year of relatively steady work in a variety of areas, with preferably a minimum of 40% article edits. (Once an admin, those article percentages go down, however...). I would strongly discourage an RfA run at this time. You might make a good admin, but the majority of editors voting at the discussion would not be willing to find out just yet. Work on some AfDs, keep doing what you are doing, get up to 5k edits and ping me again and I will be happy to do a full review. This way you would have a much better chance of succeeding, as you would be better prepared for the job. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I know my edit count is low...I have kind of been going in spurts. I wasn't really planning on running, but again thanks for the feedback. Go Phightins! (talk) 16:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, by any chance could you have a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Padmalakshmisx. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 04:35, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks like MuZemike already took care of it an hour after you posted this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you added my name to this page but I'm not either of the two persons which Lysozym (talk · contribs) accused me to be. I have opposed the edits of Nasir Ghobar in one of the article and reverted him several times (please see my talk page). My account is not even new, because I have created articles, mainly about Pashto (its dialects), and expanded/moved to correct titles the already existing articles about Afghan calendar, about several Pashtun tribes and about some of the other topics about my country (Afghanistan). So because of my edits, I can't be any of those two persons, thanks. Khestwol (talk) 14:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I've copied this over to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lagoo sab, the actual case. I'm basically just filing the report for another editor and not acting as a clerk, including not endorsing for CU. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was nice of you. --John (talk) 16:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Now we wait and see if niceness is rewarded or slapped out of my hand. If we have to use more blunt force, we can at least say we tried and gave every reasonable chance for compliance. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious what differences in their language made you conclude they were two different persons? It looks like the checkuser evidence was unambiguous. I suppose it's still possible that they were two different individuals who edited together and thus greatly influenced each others' on-wiki expression over the years. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• CU is all that matters now. They did go to the effort to use better grammar with the hellartgirl account than with the other, which means they were a smart sock (no shocker, they have done it for a long time and gotten away with it, after all). It is very difficult to determine based solely on behavior for broken English cases. And Elen ran the check, another CU might have refused it, but in the end, we got the sock. My job as clerk in a CU request is to provide the CU with a basis to run the check, not make a final determination, as this wasn't a slam dunk (obviously, as neither is even french). We don't always get it right, all we can do is the best we can do. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not asking you to as an admin. Would you volunteer here please. This guys are eating me with their nonsensical comments bordering on WP:IDON'TLIKEIT and sophistries. Please get involved. Don't have to act as an admin. Mrt3366^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 18:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I've replied there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You claimed "forum shopping isn't going to get you anything but blocked, so I suggest you return to the talk page there, listen, present your ideas in a calm and rational way, and accept whatever the consensus becomes". I do not disagree. That article is plagued by ownership issues. I didn't try to canvass, but anyway since it seems as though I have canvassed, what should I do or not do now? Should stop commenting the on the talk pages of involved editors, all editors or anything in those lines? I don't want to get blocked and I think your comment/guidance will be more than enough to set me on the right track. Tell me how to go about dealing with this problem. Thanks for your time. Mrt3366^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 05:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should know that I was following the path of ignoring all rules, I was doing what I was doing for the betterment of Wikipedia article, there was no malevolent intent. I was just using my common sense that the article is plagued by ownership issues and that needs to change anyhow. Mrt3366^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 06:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you were were malevolent, or I would have taken stronger action, but you were very mistaken in your understanding of WP:IAR. That being one of my favorite policies and pillars to pontificate on, and to quiz potential admins about, I have found it to be the most misunderstood. While it is a blunt little policy, there is more nuance than meat to it and it isn't a catchall to just ignore rules. Canvassing wouldn't fit in it, likely ever, for example. Its use should be limited to "if we had thought of this before, we would have made a rule about it" cases, or in circumstances so rare but obvious that a rule isn't needed and common sense just says to do it a way that the policy says don't. It is a tool to fight bureaucracy, not create anarchy. IAR is only 12 words, yet hundreds of pages can (and have) been written explaining it, demonstrating its elegance and propensity to be misunderstood. But again, I didn't think you were trying to be malevolent, but I still felt I needed to correct your mistake, and to do it there rather here, since you canvassed many people. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I closed the discussion regarding User:Oxycut. Feel free to revert if you want to leave any more comments there.--Calm As Midnight 20:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• No problem, you never need to explain a non-controversial non-admin close to me. I'm one of those admins that has no problem with them at all. I notice you are new, but hit the ground running. Your name is familiar as well, have we crossed paths in the past with different names, say 4 or more years ago? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I've never been here before.--Calm As Midnight 21:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dennis. First, I'm really glad you protected Big Brother 14. Thanks. Second, part of the vandalism was that someone removed the purple | legend5 = Jury Member from the infobox menu, which is needed to tell readers what the names highlighted in purple means; that each is a Jury Member. Can you please add that back? Otherwise, readers will have no idea what the purple highlighting means in the infoxbox. It should go in between | legendeject = Expelled and !--| legendwalk = Walked --, as shown below.

| legendeject = Expelled

| legend5 = Jury Member

!--| legendwalk = Walked --

Thanks! --76.189.97.91 (talk) 22:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done And thank you for the very clear explanation of what needed fixing. I hate protecting it, being a fan (but not an editor on it) but the vandalism was getting ridiculous. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and you're very welcome. :) I was trying to figure out how I could most easily explain how to make the edit. I'm glad it worked. Haha. And, yes, the vandalism was becoming non-stop. Thanks again, Dennis. --76.189.97.91 (talk) 22:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Dennis, sorry to bother you again but User:CloudKade11 has again vandalized the article by changing all the purple names to pink after an overwhelming number of editors agreed on the purple/Jury Member content (via edit history and talk page). And he has also now started to harrass me on my talk page. This is about the eighth time he's reverted the Big Brother 14 content over the past few days, including six within 24 hours. I warned Cloudkade on his talk page last night about edit-warring. As retaliation, he copy and pasted the warning into my talk page a few minutes ago. After I removed it, he posted it a second time and then a third time. Can you please deal with him about his edit-warring in the article and continued harrassment on my talk page? And revert his disputive edit in the Big Brother 14 article? He really needs to be stopped because he's out of control. Thanks, Dennis :) --76.189.97.91 (talk) 01:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse you? When did I ever "vandalize" anything? And "overwhelming number"? lol Only 3 people including yourself took part in that discussion. The reason I keep changing it to it's original edit is because the discussion is still going on and the issue isn't resolved yet. Users are just beginning to take part in the issue and are giving their opinions based on these past 2 days. 2 users against 1 does not mean the issue is resolved or "majority rules" is qualified. Changing the names to pink is accurate and has been the way we've been editing that page for seasons 9-14(6 years), until recently you decided to make them purple out of the blue and without making a discussion first to see what others think. Based on your talk page history it seems you have had issues with other users as well on the same types of situations.(ie removing warnings from other users). Also, it's not "Edit warring" when you simply change it back to it's original edit and make a discussion about it first. However, it is edit warring when you undo the edits when the issue is still being discussed. CloudKade11 (talk) 01:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the record Dennis, I went back through the end of August to see which editors either were reverted for adding the purple/Jury Member content and/or who supported it in the talk page discussion. They include User:DynasticAnthony, User:76.189.97.91, User:LeoChris, User:TheDevin13, User:Jarrenloop117, 174.106.13.49, User:Pieniazek666, User:CopyCat2013, User:AmazingRaceClub, User:146.201.174.13 and User:204.12.190.8. The only two editors to revert the content are User:Msalmon and User:CloudKade11. So at least 11 editors (I stopped counting) have indicated that the purple content should be in the infobox. This tells the story. In terms of CloudKade's claim that "Only 3 people including yourself took part in that discussion", you can see for yourself that it's false. Of course, this do not address the harrassment issue of CloudKade repeatedly putting back the warning on my talk page after I had removed it. This is outrageous behavior. --76.189.97.91 (talk) 02:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about the discussion you had with Msalmon on September 7. You told me the next day the decision was final when only 3 people were involved. Obviously now more have taken part in the discussion. CloudKade11 (talk) 04:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for interjecting, but Dennis is likely asleep or doing something else more productive than refereeing edit warring. CloudKade 11, I would recommend you stop continually posting the warning template on 76...'s talk page. This could easily be construed as trolling. 3 people, in my opinion, is not enough to obtain consensus in most cases, so I would recommend that you continue to discuss. I'm sure Dennis will have something more inspired than this to say, but that's my initial read. Go Phightins! (talk) 02:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further review, far more than 3 editors agree with the IP, so that to me is consensus and therefore I would side with the IP. Go Phightins! (talk) 02:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, the purple color thing can stay. I only added the warning template to the IP's talk page because he did the same thing to me. And I don't get why it was so wrong to add it to his page in the first place when he was in fact edit warring with other users. Look at his talk page history. Clearly he doesn't like users posting warnings on his page, he always reverts them and leaves a rude comment in the edit summary. It's obvious the IP is troubled therefore I'm not going to continue to waste my time with this. The season is over next week anyways. CloudKade11 (talk) 04:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dennis Brown. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
Message added 02:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Hi Dennis. Since you recently blocked Oxycut (talk · contribs), I'm sure you'll be happy to learn about NudeGovernment (talk · contribs) and his recently created Category:Monorchism and monorchid people. Some people have too much time on their hands... Cheers, Pichpich (talk) 03:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Definite sockpuppet. Like I just told Dennis in an email: I believe that Oxycut is back, this time as NudeGovernment. Not only does he have the same interest in monorchism and Adolf Hitler as Oxycut, but the same interest in what material to add to the Sexual intercourse article as well. And if that's not enough evidence, he made an edit to an article I created -- Todd Manning and Marty Saybrooke rape storylines -- which suggests that he has either followed my contributions or has looked at my user page. "NudeGovernment" appears to have been a sleeper, an account just waiting to be used in case his regular account was blocked. He made just enough edits to get autoconfirmed and then moved on to the Sexual intercourse article. And just as I'm typing this to you, I see that User:Pichpich has recognized him as a sockpuppet as well and left a message for you on your talk page about it. There's no telling how many sockpuppets this user has had and how many current sleepers. Flyer22 (talk) 08:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • I've got a request in at SPI for a CU sleeper check. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oxycut where we found a whole drawer full of socks, all blocked now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That editor could also be the umpteenth sock of DavidYork71 (talk · contribs), a master I'm unfamiliar with and so, since I had no technical evidence to compare these new accounts to, I could not make an assessment... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • You might should ask Tnxman307 if he has any old data to compare with. He did the last CU. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Very good idea, thanks! I've just shot him an e-mail. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Let me know if they match up, I will do a rename/merge-hist on the cases. I only screw those up about half the time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • All those accounts... Per what I stated above, definitely not surprised. Per David's ability to speak more coherently than Oxycut, it looks like I was played into thinking that there is a language barrier between Oxycut and others (myself included) -- that English is not his first language and/or isn't something that he's often decent at expressing -- although it seems he's never been good at signing his user name. As always, thanks for taking care of problematic editors, Dennis. Flyer22 (talk) 22:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • • You and AndyTheGrump were right on-target about Oxycut's language barrier not amounting to much of anything. Salvio giuliano, your help on this matter is also of course appreciated. Flyer22 (talk) 22:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He's back. Flyer22 (talk) 01:30, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dennis Brown. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User page breaching wikipedia policies, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9 (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 06:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dennis,

You might take a look at User_talk:Belchfire#Warning in reference to your comments here as it's tangentially a related issue. I bring it up because Belchfire and Still Standing-247 are the two most involved users in the "conservatives vs. liberals vs. everyone else" war going on on conservative pages. Belchfire makes a salient point that there are other editors involved who need warning as well. But it's a big task, and I could certainly use assistance, if you're willing, as well as that of any other uninvolved administrator who happens to be watching this page. The players involved (not necessarily "guilty" but the ones that consistently pop up in this area) are pretty obvious: StAnselm (talk · contribs), Lionelt (talk · contribs), Binksternet (talk · contribs), IRWolfie- (talk · contribs), Roscelese (talk · contribs), Little_green_rosetta (talk · contribs), Mr. Vernon (talk · contribs), Guy Macon (talk · contribs), and Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs). There may be others involved, some of the aforementioned may not be breaking any rules -- those are just the names that immediately stand out from a cursory glance. This is no joke one of the most disruptive, widespread series of edit wars I've seen in 7 years and 20,000 edits on this project. And nobody is doing anything about it, other than intermittently looking at the AN/I complaints as they come up. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I've left a detailed message there, just I already have with Still, more than once. It appears some mediation is needed. It is complicated enough that ANI just isn't a viable option for these disputes, either they need to start playing by the rules or sanctions will follow. While I loathe having to just start blocking or unilaterally issuing other sanctions, I'm not afraid to if it will keep the peace. I think it will take two or three of us working directly with the parties for a while. I'm not interested in debating content with them, only conduct, including bias, and I see you agree. I will start looking at some of the other parties, too. I have looked at Lionel some, and it wasn't encouraging. They seem to reworking WP:WikiProject Conservatism from being a project about classical conservative in articles, into more of a political and bias machine, which is likely unacceptable here. A tool for divisiveness. You might take a look at that as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I too have seen this shift; I have boldly done something practical to correct it: [13] & project talk p. DGG ( talk ) 00:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have echoed your sentiments at the talk page, and a full review by a few uninvolved admin is likely overdue. I appreciate your involvement. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I am the IP user banned for a few days, but it seems a dynamic IP allows me to respond. I've seen this talk, and I can't but stand in amazement. Not a single justification has ever been done by Go Phightins!, while you mentioned this: "Intercourse style of a political candidate (sic) likely to be violation of [biography rules]".

First, don't take my Manuel Ferrara edits for Nicolas Sarkozy edits, they're not alike.

Second, who could deny the intercourse style is part of a porn actor's most salient characteristics? We have a man who is among the most prized of this day; people might ask what makes the difference? Newbies might respond the size, but there are other factors. Ferrara stated repeatedly in the interview I gave as a reference, that he particularly cared about making love on camera as in real life, which attracted praise from porn actresses and discontent from a few directors. But his style, he added, opened him the doors of the business in America against the competition from actors who'd do this more "mechanically". The opposite style is Siffredi's.

I fully understand that, as for me, my style of writing might not be apposite, and it needs to be edited. One could rather use the word intercourse, and use other language to better recall the importance of it. But saying that a man got inspiration from some people and inspired others is exactly what Plato's infobox does.

Thanks. 2A01:E35:2F0C:F510:D45B:5A8C:6B52:AB04 (talk) 20:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Lovely. Blocked for block evasion. I don't have time for this kind of nonsense. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's IPv6, so given that he's range hopping, block his /64 or /60 (2A01:E35:2F0C:F510::/64 or 2A01:E35:2F0C:F510::/60).--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will leave the IPv6 range blocks up to the full time network admins. I'm an old fart that cut his teeth on IPv4 over 20 years ago, and it appears now I need to read up on IPv6 to be effective here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've blocked the /64 for 3 days. Feel free to drop me a note if he comes back and i'll extend it. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 00:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks DQ, I need to learn the topology for IPv6 as they are getting more and more common. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • • Holy cow, that is 18,446,744,073,709.551,616 individual IP addresses DQ!! that is more than the entire IPv4 space, by a few factors! Admins will be getting a form of Zero stroke from these blocks. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dennis Brown. You have new messages at Toddst1's talk page.
Message added 20:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC) 20:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He's a little out of control.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I revoked talk page, now he emails me but I already gave him the link for unblocking. He keeps emailing me, I will revoke that as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Did you really want to leave all that crap on his talk page? I don't much care about being called an idiot and a shit, but I do object to him copying the article, including the material that violates policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, I've been swamped putting out fires here, plus several things off wiki. I blanked his comments. You could have ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Nothing to be sorrry about - I'm making work for you. I would've blanked the comments if the tirade hadn't been against me. I suppose I could have deleted the fake article and retained the personal attack for posterity. :-) Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Naw, you could have blanked the tirade under "what any other admin would have done" exception to WP:INVOLVED, then you just drop a note here that says you did, or at WP:AN, although that is pretty dramatic for simple page blanking. You worry too much, that isn't controversial at all, just do it, and tell the active admin on the case. If he emails you with a tirade, feel free to block email access and tell me. He has already emailed me. Not rude, just demanding to be unblocked, but that isn't how it works. I already linked WP:GAB for him. He still has the legal threat under the IP to deal with. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are "working with" Still-24, here are some examples of behavior that you may want to address. Taken along with the rest of the examples I'm about to show you, these two edits from today are basically targeted harassment: [14], [15]. Take note that Still-24 never edited those articles before today, and only became interested in them immediately after I touched them, and only for the express purpose of reverting my edits.

Now, if this was just an occasional occurrence, it would be easily understandable. But it's not - it's a pattern. Additional examples:

1. [16], 25 July 2012
2. [17], 27 July 2012
3. [18], 7 August 2012
4. [19], 10 August 2012
5. [20], 10 August 2012
6. [21], 13 August 2012
7. [22], 15 August 2012
8. [23], 22 August 2012
9. [24], 23 August 2012
10. [25], 1 September 2012
11. [26], 1 September 2012
12. [27], 3 September 2012
13. [28], 6 September 2012

In every single one of these diffs, Still-24 (1) had never edited the article before, and (2) his initial edit reverted something I had done. Mind you, most of this has taken place over just the last month.

Needless to say, when somebody is following you around reverting your edits like this, it's damned difficult to avoid having negative interaction with them. So, since I've been given a rather stern admonishment, while Still is being "worked with", I would be appreciative if you would take some ownership here and "work with" this portion of the problem. Thanks. Belchfire-TALK 06:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if it would be productive for me to respond, but I'll at least point out one thing: Every last one of these articles is about conservatism, so they're all the sorts of articles that I focus on.

It's not always about you, Belchfire; I had these watchlisted. Please put aside the WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not productive. Let's let Dennis do his thing, OK? He's a smart guy, and can figure that out on his own quite well. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 07:51, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. It's hard to just stand by while these sorts of claims are made. If you'd like, I would be willing to remove my comment entirely, along with your response. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No need to remove comments, we are all grown ups here. I just woke up, need coffee, and will out of gone part of the day, but will look at it. Belchfire, I'm not oblivious to all the problems, but that is a two way street. I use good tools, and this tells me the commonalities and who edited first. The goal here is not justice, but a solution. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Partial review of links

1. If you put those tags there, then Still was right to remove them. Overtagged and non-applicable, and the incoherent in particular was poorly thought out.

2. Still added a youtube video, not my favorite source, but this did source the phrase. You were both nitpicking here, but he did back it up with a source.

3. Still added a source to demonstrate who coined the phrase, a very good quality one at that. There may be conflicting sources, but it looks in good faith to me, and accurate.

4. Still was editing that before you were. He adds section with source, arguably for balance.

5. Cleans up, adds another instance that is sourced by ABC news. Couldn't verify, their site is down.

6. He blanked a section out, I would have reverted back in and just discussed via WP:BRD, which is what happened, and in the end, it was left out of the article. The concept is notable, but likely not in the context of this article. Orangemike said as much. In the end, it appears Still was right, and with consensus, so I don't see a way to blame him.

7. Dispute on phrasing. Honestly, using the source, either phrase is sythesis.

And then I figured that I had seen enough. Belchfire, if these are the best examples of his "abuse", then there isn't much of a case. Previously, he was quite abusive in talk but he has shaken that habit for the most part. These edits all look to be good faith edits. They could be debated or discussed, but I didn't see anything unusual, and in the one, he had edited the article first, but none of us WP:OWNs articles.

I am concerned about the entire subject of "conservatism" on Wikipedia right now, and how it is being interpreted, particularly at Wikiproject Conservatism. I had contacted DGG, who I could easily trust to be objective, for a review. I then discovered that he had already been looking at the problem as well, and he has and is working on the issues with bias there. There is an undercurrent of bias, and confusion there. Conservatism here has always been about the classic view of it as a philosophy here at Wikipedia, a normal thing for an encyclopedia, but as of late, the introduction of efforts there to introduce a particular brand of conservatism into articles is troublesome. I am concerned you may be getting caught up in that wave, and I have already noticed a bias when editing these topics. It is fine to be interested in Conservatism, but we can't inject it or any particular brand of it into articles, or advocate, which some of the recent activity resembles. And not just you, but by many people. There is plenty of blame to go around on much of the disruption, but the disruption is much easier to deal with than the NPOV concerns. Needless to say, I expect to be exceedingly active on this topic, and it appears DGG and SWAT will as well, and I would surprised if others didn't join us to insure we have an understanding. An RFC on the overall issue may be needed in the near future as well.

As for Wikihounding, the link provided shows that you have followed him to a great number of articles, too, so I call that a push. You both have similar interests, just on different sides of the political spectrum. It isn't unusual to check contribs of someone making edits you find problematic, and the efforts don't appear to be dogging, since they are with sources and in good faith.

And now I have work to do in the real world for a while. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if the solution to all the conservative/liberal drama related articles is a broadly construed article probation by the community. I can't imagine you'd have a hard time finding sufficient admins to endorse it. The problem is that we have general sanctions on some individaul articles, including the presidential candidates, but nothing covering the entire spectrum basically of all the ancillary issues in the election that the candidates often touch upon. For example, the Family Research Council, Chick-fil-A, and related articles are all issues that have come under heated edit wars, yet are not necessarily covered by the existing general sanctions. And frankly, I don't think anything less than having uninvolved admins being able to step in is going to fix those articles, as the disruptiveness is in the amount of wikilawyering going on. The issue, I think, would be framing the sanctions to cover the right mix of articles -- it'd need to cover the election itself, issues in the election and participants in those issues, subjects of media coverage related to the election, pages relating to conservative organizations, personalities, and viewpoints, etc. I left out liberal organizations/etc. because they have not received the same amount of edit warring, so the sanctions would be harder to justify. I'm about to go on vacation starting tomorrow, so my editing time is going to be less, but I wanted to bounce the idea past you. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues!} 08:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the North Carolina Music Hall of Fame article some and was going to go there the next couple of days or so and take some pictures. I know we should have one of the front entrance, probably, but was wondering if you thought there was anything there specifically that you'd like a picture of for the article. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 19:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I haven't been there so I really have no idea. Sad, since I live right next to it. I think that is one of those things that you will know once you get there, as something will just cry out to be on the pages of Wikipedia. And thanks for taking the time to do so. And WOW, nice job on the listing and sources. Once again, I get a good basic idea and you turn it into something very worthwhile. Exceptional work, much more useful now. I was going to suggest a category, but I see you already did that, too. I'm been swamped with admin things lately, I really wish I was spending more time on these articles. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dennis Brown. You have new messages at WP:ANI#West Hartlepool War Memorial.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nyttend (talk) 22:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw someone else asked for your help regarding a troublesome dynamic IP. Mine is not an IP but a user. I would like to report a serious violation: deliberately misrepresenting a source. I have seen that people have been permanently banned for deliberate misrepresentation of a source, so I assume that this is quite serious...

So here is the relevant diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexander_Hamilton&diff=511166748&oldid=511151891

If you go here you can see for yourself that the person concerned, User:Shoreranger, deliberately falsified the source regarding the prevailing scholarly consensus. He changed it to the complete opposite: the scholarly consensus is that Hamilton and other Founders did not have a deep concern about slavery; he changed it to say that they did.

What should I do about this? Is there a process I need to undertake in order to get someone banned or whatever the punishment is for this sort of deceitful activity, or is reporting this to you here enough, and you will now deal with it? Thank you for attention. ColaXtra (talk) 00:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Hold on cowboy :-) First, keep in mind that we should assume good faith. It is entirely possible that he simply misread the source and thought he was doing the right thing. Usually, we just revert it with a polite summary that points to the fact that the source actually says the opposite of what was changed. If they change it back, you go to the talk page, quote the passage, and invite them to the talk page on the article. Now, if he starts edit warring or being defiant about it (the source is crystal clear on this, and your interpretation is correct) then you pop onto the talk page of a friendly admin like you did here. But we assume good faith. Lord knows, out of my 27,000 edits, I've screwed up more than a few times myself, so we assume it was an innocent mistake but correct it first. Being mistaken isn't against policy. Let's not jump to conclusions yet. Most of the time, these issues are just simple misreadings or mistakes. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Let me add one more thing, please don't use phrases like " and that he deliberately falsified it", because that is a very aggressive claim, and you do not know that. It could have been an innocent mistake, the guy has been here for 6 years, he isn't a new vandal. Making a claim like that without substantiation is considered incivil, so it is best to not do that. Assume good faith until you have a reason to not. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for your help! ColaXtra (talk) 01:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dennis. Jarrenloop117 will not stop making disruptive edits to Big Brother 14, which you protected a few days ago. The only thing he uses his account for is to go into this one article and incorrectly switch names around.[29] I never reverted him, but thankfully other editors have done so continuously. Thanks. --76.189.97.91 (talk) 01:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Someone reverted, I left a warning on his talk page. Ping me here again if it continues. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you. --76.189.97.91 (talk) 01:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• What was this about? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 17:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Damn fine question, wish I had an answer. Browser is sticky as can be, and it must have been a very bad click, and it certainly was not my intention to revert your edit. My apologies, and I assure you it wasn't intentional. I didn't even realize it until you pointed it out. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Apologies accepted and I must say that I feel you, b'cos that scenario happened to me before... especially when the mouse acts up and I clickety-click-click-click on the wrong link without realising it until much later. Anyway, best and cheers~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 18:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at the talk page of the Massoud article properly? I point you to this section which I started[30] I asked FP what his issues with the article were, he point blank refused to discuss. Since then he has edit warred to his preferred version and as you have seen he still refuses to discuss. Since that exchange on the talk page he has self admitted to hounding me, you may recall I asked for an interaction ban due to it, he appears to me to have a vindictive streak a mile wide and it is clouding his judgement. He has done the same with JCAla, after a bitter argument over some image he turned up at the Massoud article and began what can only be described as a sustained campaign of harassment. He will not discuss, he just wants those who disagree with him banned, can you think of a way forward? Perhaps make it a condition that those involved in the current dispute should go to DR? Facts, not fiction (talk) 22:34, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I've looked properly and I see lots of problems. I don't think DRN will work due to other complications, however. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any suggestions then? I will not edit the article for a week, maybe FP will have calmed down a bit by then and will discuss. Nihil Novi Sub Sole (talk) 23:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the solution is, to be perfectly honest. But I'm trying to find one. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Civility Barnstar
	While others may not always appreciate your buckets of good faith, I wanted to let you know that it is noticed. Cheers! Tgeairn (talk) 23:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you! I've added to my collection. I genuinely appreciate the thought and kindness that goes into it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or at least unfussed at.

Thanks anyways for your work at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:HughD reported by --Demiurge1000 (talk) (Result: ).
--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Fussed or not, I try to use my best judgement and do the right thing. I can go along with consensus on anything, but my judgement is my own. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Funny, I was just thinking of that phrase in relation to an ANI issue. Drmies (talk) 03:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saw your post on WER talkpage. Are you familiar with User:Equazcion? He is extremly good at this sort of thing.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Good idea. I used to cross paths with him regularly, but haven't seen him a quite a while. Invite him over to WER, he is a good guy and I bet would be interested in one of the many subprojects there, and perhaps SPI. He is pretty sharp. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! I actually forgot this is how I first met you. *Giggle*...hey, he really is good at this stuff and that is what I remember more than anything! LOL!--Amadscientist (talk) 03:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think your first impression of me was all that good, but fortunately, we both kept an open mind and we've discovered we have the same goals, even if different ideas on how to get there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was a horrible situation for me to have A) placed myself in and B)projected onto you. Hey, we all have our ways of dealing with issues and yours for me, at the time seemed to have worked in the long run.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dennis Brown. You have new messages at Mrt3366's talk page.
Message added 14:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

I hope you don't mind {{tb}}. Mrt3366^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 14:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm easy. tb templates are always fine. Glad we have a clear path forward, now we can go work on articles ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If your around ATM, Do I just pick a topic such as Talk:Shrimp#Request for comment read and determine the consensus and close it in this manner and merly mark it as {{done}} at AN ? Mlpearc (powwow) 15:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Pretty much. I recommend starting with the simplest and easiest cases to begin with. And of course, cases where you can be 100% unbiased. That case is more complicated than it might look, as there was another RfC just a few weeks ago that John closed, then I had to review the close, then they started a NEW RfC/RM....Jeez. But if you feel comfortable, go for it. Look around at past RfCs to get an idea of how it is done first. I haven't close but one RfC myself, and I generally don't close a lot of AfDs even, for that matter, so I'm not a good person to teach you how. I'm more of a personal dispute manager, but I need to learn. I did one yesterday, but it was an easy and obvious one. But I am glad to see you have an interest, we certainly need the help and I think the experience will benefit you as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I would love to help and will, I always strayed away from these types of involvement for a couple reason 1) Just not being an admin and 2) didn't want to increase my chances of doing something stupid. The second is just something I'll have to bite the bullet and just do it, if I ever really want to be in a competent position to help :P, while waiting for your response I been looking for RFC closing guide lines, I see your also new to this but can you point me to some helpful semi-official guidelines ? Mlpearc (powwow) 16:07, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. Being a typical American male, I often don't read the instructions until after I've screwed something up, but I did notice these admin howto pages: Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions and Wikipedia:Closing discussions, which also makes it clear you should declare the closure as a "non-admin closure", always a good idea. If you close something that requires admin action, you can always post it to WP:AN with a request that they make the necessary admin action. This also gets a quick review, since they don't just blindly move stuff. Keep in mind, this is a function of dispute resolution, so your comments must be neutral and clearly not a "super vote". Expect that sometimes, someone is going to question your neutrality or judgement when they are in the minority. Sometimes loudly or at ANI, but this is what admins have to go through all the time, so consider it a training ground. Another reason to cherry pick the simple and easy cases to start, and to review past RfCs at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Archive. I probably need to follow my own advice here as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is how I'll start [31] and [32] lol, School is "in session" Thanx for your help :) Mlpearc (powwow) 16:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just be careful to not bite off more than you can chew. It is easy to do, and these are often contentious. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see the discussion I started at NORN about his edits at Self-deportation? Dougweller (talk) 16:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I surely did. I'm at the day job, so I'm in and out quite a bit, but I see Orlady has jumped in and you both seem to have the issue under control. If you need a third wheel, ping me. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Biggfann; see User:Kkkkk1209 & IP creation Wikipedia_talk:Articles for creation/Jaedyn Ellis. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done Good find, clean match by contribs. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My recent post on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ([33]), was a desperate call for intervention and instead I get rallying of indirect support for my tormentor. Administrators are in place to delegate peace and neutrality, not impose god-like decisions on editor's state of being. User Let Me Eat Cake (talk · contribs) clearly violated WP:WIAPA by going against, Linking to external attacks, harassment, or other material, for the purpose of attacking another editor., on my talk page. They also violated Wikipedia:Civility-Edit summary dos and don'ts, with their edit summaries at Go On (TV series). I ask, what are the repercussions of their actions? NOTHING?! LiamNolan24 (talk) 22:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I wasn't supporting your detractor, but just like in the real world, sometimes conversations get a little rough and tumble. I'm not going to block someone for being blunt, or even rude for that matter. You have to be able to tolerate a little bluntness or you will not make it editing here. People at the English Wikipedia come from every country, every culture, every political leaning and have different ideas. This means things get heated during conversations sometimes. The conversation on your talk page was rather pedestrian and nothing that deserved to be reported. You might not like it, but people have opinions here and as long as they aren't making direct attacks at you, heated discourse is, and should be, tolerated. We aren't here to play nice and get along, although hopefully we will get along. We are here to build a world class encyclopedia, and often this means disputes. Sometimes people get a little incivil, although I didn't see it here. And I'm not going to block someone for a little incivility anyway. People are sometimes rude in the real world, and sometimes they are a little rude here. You have to learn to tolerate a small degree of it or you will never be able to participate here. Just ignore it, move on. They don't know you, they can't see you, it isn't personal because they don't know you. Don't take it so personally and you will be much happier here. You can't change other people here any more than you can in the real world. You have to adapt, tolerate a degree of it, and ignore it. If it is a personal attack, someone calling you bad things, fine, I would correct them or even block them if needed. But not for bluntness. Otherwise I would have to block half the people here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Your reasoning is ludicrous. You can't change other people here any more than you can in the real world., this is insane, no we can not change people in the real world, but this, this is a HUMONGOUS opportunity to influence the real world by relegating people's tongues and tones on Wikipedia. The fact that most editors on Wikipedia use Pulp Fiction as a dictionary source, validates them being blocked or thrown off it. As Administrators are you not, in a way, tasked with making this a more indifferent, formal, logistical type of resource center? There should be statues in place to echo my, and I'm sure hundreds of others, sentiments. Since those statutes do not exist, hundreds of great editors turn away from this vulgarity everyday. I can only hope one day things change, for the better. LiamNolan24 (talk) 23:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• No, as an admin I am not tasked with fulfilling any one persons vision of Wikipedia. I'm a volunteer, just like you. I have no special powers to control others, just a few extra tools for cleaning up the place. I am not here to force others to conform of one vision of civility, only to insure that everyone meets a very lax and general standard of it. People are going to be somewhat vulgar here, but we have specific policies that say we don't censor. I'm sorry if it offends you, but some people are just more crude than others. People are going to be blunt here, but we don't try to change everyone's behavior, and only require a basic level of civility. I've been here over 6 years now, 27,000 edits into my Wiki-career, and if I've learned anything, I've learned that you can't please everyone. All I can do as admin is try to foster a level playing field for all editors to edit in. As far as "hundreds of great editors turn away from this vulgarity everyday", I'm aware of the problems of editor retention. I founded WikiProject Editor Retention (see my signature). I eat, breath and live it every day, but it isn't about keeping everyone, it is about creating a fair and equitable environment. But I see another place on your talk page where you accuse people of personal attacks, yet they aren't personal attacks. I'm afraid your threshold is too low, and there is nothing I can do to fix that. You have to accept that some people will get rude, and as long as they don't pass the threshold at WP:NPA, action isn't likely to be forthcoming, as some mildly rude people are very productive wikipedians, too. It would nice if everyone would be perfectly mannered, but it isn't going to happen, so we tolerate a degree of bluntness, as I've said. Our goal isn't to create a polite society, it is to build an encyclopedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I, respectfully, agree to very much disagree. The fact that Wikipedia is willing to accept the current state of foul is deplorable, and that truth will keep this site from becoming a respectful and reverent information source. Thank you for your time. LiamNolan24 (talk) 03:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Dennis, was wondering if you could flip a couple pages/histories for me. 96.5 WBGI-FM moved to 100.5, formerly WYJK. 100.5 WYJK moved to 96.5, formerly WBGI-FM. Essentially it is a callsign/format flip-flop, but I am not sure how do flip the pages. So, that's where I need your help. Thanks in advance...Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I tend to think you leave the articles as is and just update the article with the new info, since the history itself is related to the call sign, not the ownership or frequency, which can be changed as well. Ownership changes all the time with radio stations. The call letters are more important, and arguably the "notable" part, since that is how they are licensed. But you might ask Wikipedia:WikiProject Radio Stations to get a more educated opinion, since they deal with nothing but. The goal is consistency, after all, so they would know how we have done it before. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Admin's Barnstar
	The most brilliant explanations of incivility and how to address them I have ever seen on Wikipedia in my 7 years and 51,000 edits, and nearly 2 years as a very busy admin. Well done! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you very much! I'm very flattered to receive a barnstar from someone as experienced and respected as yourself. It really does mean a lot to me. I've safely stored the original in my Ronco Barnstar Vault for safe keeping. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Crimean Karaites". Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 08:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[34] Sock puppet formal ban proposal? Seems to have gotten a little out of hand and I was going to comment but decided I have to much interaction with the two main Admin to take a side here.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, I had to oppose that. I think it was brought there for the wrong reasons. I'm not in a hurry to unblock him, and he was directed to the standard offer, but I don't see much recently that justifies such a strong action today. I could be wrong, but it seems motivated by a dispute between Drmies and Kww, which I think is the wrong reason to ban someone. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, it was, as described in my nomination, a simple formality. Dewan357 is de-facto banned. No one will unblock him, his behaviour is such that he normally would be banned, and none of the objections to banning him have been based on some acceptability of his rampant block evasion. It's unfortunate that people are allowing Drmies's objections to my reversions to distract them from the actual question at hand.—Kww(talk) 15:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• And, as a side note, what part of edit-warring and block evasion across a group of 125 articles over the last week doesn't constitute recent behaviour?—Kww(talk) 15:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't doubt your sincerity, even if I'm concerned over your timing. If there is a question as to when and what to revert with a de facto banned user (a very valid question, I might add) then we should have that discussion instead. I don't have a dog in this hunt, but I can't help but to think that the reason for the ban request is due to that argument, and since that would be a faulty premise to base a ban on, my oppose is more a matter or procedure than anything else. As for when to revert a de facto banned user and when not to, that is indeed a good question, and one I can't say I know the right answer to. I'm genuinely torn. I work SPI, so I naturally want to discourage socking in all forms, but I'm also an editor who wants to build an encyclopedia even if using "dirty" but constructive edits, so I am on the fence. My oppose shouldn't be seen as endorsing Drmies view, but rather my own way of saying that the issue should be raised in a proper forum and not handled ad hoc. As for recent behavior, I didn't see it in the SPI record, although I did my own searching and did see they all did geolocate to the same basic area. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't open SPI reports every time I revert block evasion. That's why I included the recent links in the AN report. There really isn't a question as to when to revert block evasion in my view: universally and consistently is the only reasonable answer. Even if you disagree, that's a completely separate issue from whether this particular editor, with a record of continuous block evasion through dozens of accounts (see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Dewan357), merits a ban. The timing is certainly related, I won't deny: some people are attempting to claim that because Dewan357 wasn't formally banned, his edits are not subject to reversion. I was, indeed, trying to eliminate an excuse. Responses like yours, however, will create an even messier situation: a de-facto banned editor that has actively failed to be formally banned. A horrible, intractable, limbo state for an editor.—Kww(talk) 16:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand the frustration and respect that you disagree, but when the premise for the ban is unclear, my reaction is typically to wait. I've voted to support more than oppose when it comes to bans, although I sometimes question the utility. But when the rationale is due to policy dispute with another editor, regardless of who is right or wrong (if there is such a thing here), I have to follow my gut, which says to wait and address the issue behind the ban request, rather than using the ban as a way to go around the dispute. If not for the dispute, my vote may have been different, or I might not have participated at all. I just prefer the two different issues not be mingled. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dennis. RickWilliams75 latest unblock request seems to show that he's starting to get the picture, or at least part of it. I'm considering pitching him an unblock deal that would involve him a) shifting out of the GWAR territory he's previously edited in, and b) finding a mentor via Adopt-a-user to keep him on the straight and narrow. However, I don't want to step on your toes here, so I'd like your approval before offering him an out. What do you think? Yunshui 雲‍水 12:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I appreciate the note. Any admin is always welcome to unblock someone I've blocked if they feel the circumstances have changed. I am very careful to never "own" my actions, and understand that I'm just one more janitor around here. Any time we can convert someone over from being trollish to a contributor, it is a good thing and at the least, is always worth considering. If you feel this situation warrants the risk, then of course I would have no problem with you using your best judgement here. I would only ask you keep a close eye on the situation for a while to insure the good faith you are granting him isn't in vane. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if he does use the rope to make a noose, I'll happily take a trout to the face (and slap my own indef on him to boot). I'll make the offer, we'll see what he says. Cheers, Yunshui 雲‍水 14:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you might can tell, I may not be the only one with an opinion in the matter. I'm easy, not everyone else is. You might consider consulting with User:JamesBWatson, who declined the unblock and by doing so, made it clear he has an opinion. He's got more experience than you and I put together, and someone I have come to trust in these matters. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; JBW is probably the person I consult most often about admin matters. I've added to Rick's talkpage a simple series of questions for him to answer in order to address JBW's concerns. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Rick's still trying to claim he was stitched up... I've asked for a clearer response, but I'm not holding out much hope. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I undeleted the "Chris Gethard Show" page. While the show is a public access show, it has been covered by numerous media outlets and has viewers from around the world. I will add sources as soon as I can. Thanks! Peter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phanink (talk • contribs) 20:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, that was a mistake, and you should revert yourself. It was redirected at AFD, which means you do not override the consensus of the community by yourself, but go to WP:REFUND, or at the very least, you provide a clear and obvious amount of sources at the moment you revert. Technically, you are still supposed to go to WP:REFUND even then, but I would have overlooked it if it obviously met criteria. Again, you need to revert yourself there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This guy could do with one: User_talk:173.162.34.45. ColaXtra (talk) 20:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• If you mean block, then I agree, and did. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Denis - I got this today. User_talk:Toddy1#Notice_of_Dispute_resolution_discussion He/she just goes from one thing to another thing to attack me.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I got one, too. It isn't an attack, it is a DRN notification. Keep calm. It is part of the dispute resolution process here, nothing to get excited about. They don't block people or sanction them, they just hash out content disputes. No biggie. Stressing out and being reactive will only hurt your case, so go have a tea, look at it, keep calm, and just participate in good faith. I wouldn't even bother commenting there for a day or two, as it looks malformed to begin with. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice. I took it.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dennis. Just wanted to say sorry that I haven't worked through any of those RfCs yet. One of my colleagues has been off on a training course this week and so work has been pretty hectic, but I've got some time pencilled in for tomorrow night to take a look at them. If you have any specific ones to suggest go ahead, otherwise I'll figure it out. Regards Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 21:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• No, just look when you can, be conservative, and if you don't feel comfortable with any, then don't. No pressure. Be sure to read up on WP:CLOSE for the basics. It is something you need to be familiar with anyway. The key to admin'ing isn't remembering all these things, trust me. It is learning how to quickly find the "how-tos" and decipher them. I look stuff up all the time, as I can't remember all the little details. These can be tricky, so again, tread lightly for a time or two. But one or two a week is plenty to get some experience. Research the hows, make sure you don't use a "supervote" in your close, and only rely on the arguments and the policy rationales, and if all else fails, ask someone for help. No shame in asking. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to close the filing once 24 hours have elapsed and no other "involved" editors have stepped up. I'll speak to Amad and ask them not to do anything more with the thread until either one of the other involved editors speaks up of the 24 hour mark passes. Hasteur (talk) 21:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I hadn't really read the complaint the first time, I just knew I was improperly called there. If you knew the history....never mind, you don't want to know the history. Mountains out of molehills. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I noticed the ANI thread earlier this afternoon so I am giving Kaz their opportunity to jump up and down on the soapbox before I douse them with cold water. "User has been informed multiple times that refactoring others talk page statements is a really bad idea, Administrators are entrusted with powers because the community doesn't see problems with their editing. Editors still holding a grudge are invited to drop the WP:STICK and move on from this percieved slight." Hasteur (talk) 21:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dennis, Sorry for the confusion. I can undelete it. I wasn't familiar with the process and was actually in the middle of adding sources when the page disappeared! I've added 5 sites and was planning to add more tonight. Can I keep working on it or should I work in the sandbox until I'm done? Thanks! Peter

• No problem. The key here is that since it went to AFD, which is a community discussion, a single person shouldn't just undo that discussion. I've also looked at those sources, which are actually blogs and wouldn't pass WP:RS. I'm sure its a cute little show, but it doesn't have enough mainstream coverage to justify the stand alone article yet. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Dennis. As I said, I was in the middle of resourcing. I was going to add articles from the NY Times, Wall Street Journal, New York Magazine, and the Hollywood Reporter. That's pretty mainstream right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phanink (talk • contribs) 00:29, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, you probably want to make a list of the sources separately, and go to WP:REFUND with them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might have missed it, but there is a talk going on. And also, a content improvement. AfD would be the best way to move ahead. -DePiep (talk) 22:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dennis, among the people willing to be contacted for potential RfA nominations, you're probably the one I've seen and respect most. So, realizing you may be too busy, I'd like to request you give me a lookover for a possible RfA. Checking some of your previous reviews, I'd really appreciate such feedback on where I should focus my future efforts. I think I broadly fit most stated RfA criteria, except that I have a low edit count (~5500, ~55% mainspace). No rush, of course. Best, BDD (talk) 23:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the kind words. I will take a quick look and see if I think I can help you tomorrow. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Please create User:BDD/EditCounterOptIn.js with any content and save to "opt in" to the extended stats available in the RFA/RFB box. It is expect you will before RfA, but better to sooner so I can see monthly contribs, etc. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER

Done. Thanks for alerting me to this. --BDD (talk) 20:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dennis. Please see WP:AN3#User:DePiep reported by User:WaitingForConnection (Result: ). You are one of the admins who looked into the CSD matter. Your comment at AN3 would be helpful. A conventional admin would block, I think, but you are more forgiving than many. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 23:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This "conventional admin" blocked and, frankly, I didn't find it a difficult call.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:01, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I tried, but after a couple of events, I'm less inclined to throw good faith after bad. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all. I agree with the result. EdJohnston (talk) 03:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed your name at WP:ANI and was wondering if you could intervene or comment at Talk:God_Forgives,_I_Don't#POV_changes, a discussion for a dispute I've been having. I've contacted other members of the relevant WikiProject, but I think mostly been busy, and have already reverted three times, as the other editor doesnt seem understand communicating at the talk page. I want to be cautious, get a consensus, and not get blocked. Can you please comment? Dan56 (talk) 01:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That entire article made my eyes bleed, to be blunt, so I just explained what I saw as the problems with the article in general, and hopefully everyone will take my advice on board. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dennis. As you're someone with a fair amount of SPI and general admin experience, I wonder if you'd mind casting an eye over Talk:Festo and Talk:Pishobury for me. Both pages are primariliy concerned with an ongoing dispute over whether a German gentleman named Marco Neumueller holds the title Lord of Pishobury. The reason I'm slightly concerned is that the argument - both sides of it - is being propogated almost entirely by SPAs, which seems a little odd to me. Both talkpages have also been blanked and nominated (incorrectly) for speedy deletion in the recent past.

I'd like to know whether you think there's enough here to file an SPI report, and whether you think there's anything else actionable here. The articles themselves are moderately stable; certainly there's no frenetic edit-war going on. It just seemes weird enough to set off my internal alarms, though I can't quite put my finger on any specific policy violation. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Was an IP (improperly shows as geolocating to UK [35] but is actually an airport in Switzerland[36] based on [37], the other IP was an airport in Germany[38]), then they registered, so nothing weird since there isn't intermingling of edits, the hallmark of socking. Typical birth of an SPA. Worth watching for bad behavior later. [39] is the primary source, and the Wayback machines doesn't have an archive of the bio page itself [40] although it does of the main domain [41] starting in 2003, so assuming it is a new push to pad the biography of the gent since the overall structure of the website is new since April, maybe newer. Your points about RS there sum that aspect up perfectly, so there is no question it can't be included without 3rd party sourcing. Could be him, but more likely the webmaster or other COI entity. Definitely not here to build an encyclopedia, just add that material or perhaps build a shrine. Again, worth watching but nothing too odd yet. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jolly helpful summary; thanks Dennis. I'll leave it alone for now and just keep half-an-eye on the two talkpages in case anything inflammatory develops. Cheers for the assist. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dennis,

Please would you look at Special:Contributions/J_R_Gainey and at the editor's talk page. No-one seems to make an impression on this editor who has a huge amount of energy and creativity and who seems unable to understand the trail of difficulty left in the wake. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I see it is already at WP:AN, so it should be dealt with there as to not duplicate efforts. I will pop in there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:01, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Makes perfect sense. I was thinking of you in your WER role, really, but it may come to a big admin stick Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I put a huge and obvious note on their page. Part of editor retention is keeping the people here who are irritated at having to clean up after him, so in the end, it is about communications by everyone here. Most of his edits are ok, although the history still seems odd. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this IP a possible sock of User:Albert14nx05y? The other edits by the IP don't seem obviously problematic.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Dunno, but revdel'ed the edit and issued a 72 hour break regardless. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, I didn't much care about the attack against me as it was too silly to take seriously, but if the attack had been the same on another editor, I would probably have done what you did. Thanks for looking at it.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Not a problem. When the end result is already known, I prefer the shortest distance to getting there. No use in doing an investigation if he is going to get blocked anyway. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:06, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now editing as "Balzacdeverlain". --Niemti (talk) 15:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• No crossover, might be them but hard to convince a CU yet. In this case, this "new" user is actually older than the other. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But you would have at least revert this same edit on this page, too. (You didn't, I had to do it myself, again.[42]) --Niemti (talk) 15:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm working on several BLP violations at the same time, and have asked for more help, and RFPP. I can only juggle 12 windows at a time, while I was doing a quick investigation on that potential sock ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've dropped a note at ANI as well, which should put more eyes on the BLP article problems. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He did it once again. How many "final warnings" are final? I could not find the re-insterting edit by just looking at the edits, but here's my removal. --Niemti (talk) 18:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• There are a great many eyes on the article now. Contentious edits shouldn't last very long. Again, I can't instantly link the two editors, so it isn't socking (yet) just contentious edits. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:06, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These edits were identical, just in 2 articles (closely related). And also repeated. Oh, and he was also doing some other edits in the same style of writing ("something....other") and the same style of creating references: [43][44] (just compare, that's including putting no article titles in the links). Is it enough proof now? --Niemti (talk) 19:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And look, he just did it for about 10th time already (and several times after the "final warning" on his new account): [45] --Niemti (talk) 19:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a method to my madness. I just edit conflicted with you at ANI. I can't block him since I am editing the article. Instead, I give him enough rope to hang himself with. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, I'm not working on the article until he's dealt with and gone. --Niemti (talk) 20:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• If you would calm down and quite flooding the ANI, he would likely already be gone. The more you talk, the more that has to be read, the less likely someone wants to get involved. If you will just calm down, an admin will see my note and block him. This is the fastest way, trust me. But we still have guidelines on how we can and can't block, and they must be met. Now they have. Go have a tea. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recently, you restored the article "The Chris Gethard Show" to its previous form as a simple redirect to the article "Chris Gethard". I have gone through an official "request for undeletion" as you said to in your comment. I realize that the last "official" status of the article was as a redirect page and the reason that it didn't stay that was was because an anonymous user, not schooled in wiki etiquette simply undid that change and began editing the article from scratch. Since then, numerous sources and links to other pages were added, and it became, in my opinion, a very good article with several valid reasons to be kept around. Unfortunately, all of those reasons were deemed unworthy because it was never officially reverted from its redirect page status. I might also add that the discussion for deletion had many good points made for the article's existence, but they were all roundly ignored with no comment as to why. Basically, I'm saying that this article deserves to remain on wikipedia, and improper page editing etiquette should not affect its status. Reading the article shows just how relevant and important the show is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Clocktopus (talk • contribs)

• We don't decide how relevant and important a show is here. We decide if there are enough independent sources that meet the guidelines who themselves think it is relevant and important. It is at WP:REFUND right now, give it a week. We all have day jobs and lives and are volunteers as well, so it isn't that a bunch of people will instantly jump on it. They are smart enough to look through the history. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI, this is now under discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 September 14 and I have pointed the REFUND entry to that so that we don't have two discussions. JohnCD (talk) 21:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC). JohnCD (talk) 21:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Last month at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gunmetal Angel/Archive#15 August 2012 it was decided that Gunmetal's IP range was too wide for a range block, and the number of articles he edits is too wide to really protect each one individually. He has been editing under different IPs since the SPI discussion, but I've just been too busy to do anything about it. I've come to ask you what the best way to handle this situation would be moving forward. Should each new IP be blocked one by one? And if so, should I be opening a new SPI each time he pops up? Fezmar9 (talk) 00:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You might need to file the spi and just see if someone else is willing to do a range block. That is a pretty large range, but they might. Other than that, we can only hit them one at a time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:58, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See the new edits to Self-deportation as well as the discussion at WP:NORN, and the posts on my talk page. And [46]. It may be hard work explaining matters to this editor's satisfaction while avoiding anything that might chase the editor away. Dougweller (talk) 05:01, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And Talk:Self-deportation. I probably don't have time to respond today. Dougweller (talk) 05:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've all but stubbed that article, removing the coatrack, OR and unsourced commentary. If it gets reverted back, I will end up having to push it to AFD or merging it. Whether he gets it or not, this wasn't even remotely neutral and was more of an attack on a political candidate than an article on a subject. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:17, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Dennis Brown. I wanted to ask you a favor. Looks like Microsoft Security Essentials' FAC is going down the drain anyway and I think it was my fault. I think I said things that Malleus Fatuorum put on Codename Lisa's account. Of course, she was also sentimental at one part and said things that were emotional but they were not even comment on editor and I think it is unfair if anyone take it against Codename Lisa. (And come on, if the same standards that are taken against me were taken against Malleus Fatuorum, he would have been in trouble.) But other than that, Malleus Fatuorum seems to react to things that are pretty innocent like that professor/peer review thing. Maybe Codename Lisa was trying to say "Malleus Fatuorum, you are unique; you are even better than a pay-grade professor." Please do Codename Lisa a favor and ask Malleus Fatuorum to come back and remove the oppose.

May I'll regret this request in the future; maybe she eventually become someone like ... you know, some people. But I still feel guilty; Codename Lisa was very astute to contact me the way she did and invite me to the discussion; and I came there and ruined it all. The off chance that she may become someone like some people does not help at all. Fleet Command (talk) 09:20, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually familiar with both Lisa and Malleus, both who I have a lot of respect for and like, but looking at the actual discussion [47], I see both you and Lisa assuming a little bad faith here. When you made claims as to his past disruption, and she became defensive, he was still offering helpful advice. I think a lot of people do this to Malleus, assume he is this disruptive character, but they simply do not understand him, and as such, treat him with less respect than they would a stranger. This probably isn't what you wanted to hear, but if you want a solution then you have to accept the truth.

Malleus is blunt and direct, but those are useful attributes, not character flaws. People tend to try to read between the lines, when his words are sufficient. Malleus will not oppose something, or maintain an oppose vote out of spite, of this I am sure. He has indicated he won't revisit his vote and perhaps he could be persuaded, but by you rather than me. I'm not the one who treated him poorly, and I'm sorry, but you both reacted to his bluntness poorly. Fortunately, Malleus is quite forgiving, and I think he was rather tolerant in this exchange. So many people have made these claims of him being "disruptive" that it seems to stick, but while he is demanding of a high standard and sticks to his principles, he is in no way disruptive. Stubborn, and sometimes the meaning of his words are hiding in plain sight, but not disruptive. That is a wound best not salted, as that label was unfairly earned. I've always been treated with respect by Malleus, but I've always treated him with the same, and I think a little of it would go a long way here.

The very fact that he was working on the article and providing meaningful feedback should speak for itself. He had started working on the article, which means he was/is ready to support but under a specific criteria that he was willing to help the article pass. He would not have worked on it otherwise. He is not one to waste time or words.

If you want the article to pass FAC, what I would recommend is engaging him rather than sparring with him. Personally, I would issue a simple apology for the "disruption" comment, which helped set this on the wrong path, and don't treat the criticism as a "check list" that begrudgingly must be met. The apology won't change his vote one way or another, it is simply due. What Malleus cares about is exceptional prose in quality articles. I can assure you that he will not withdraw an oppose if the article doesn't pass muster, just as he will not maintain one if it does. It doesn't matter what anyone says, his vote will be his actual judgement, regardless of any personal feelings. Malleus is no more or less flawed than you or I, but he isn't lacking in integrity or character. Once people understand that, they not only get along with Malleus, but they benefit from the relationship.

In short, you don't need my help in this particular circumstance as the power to change the situation is lies solely in the hands of Lisa and yourself. There isn't anything I can do to change that. Of course, you are always welcome to stop here if there is something I can do help with anything. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:18, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I am to act, Dennis, I must know more. Why do you respect Codename Lisa and what evidence of bad faith did you see on Codename Lisa's part? (Perhaps I can work on respectable part of Codename Lisa's character in genuine way.)

As for me, you are right: You know my condition and you know why I left and that I no longer assume good faith on anyone in Wikipedia even Codename Lisa. She is working on Microsoft Security Essentials but I am not under the illusion the she does this for the love of me! Things that comes straight to my mind are vanity and an easy ticket to fame for a newcomer. Fleet Command (talk) 12:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think Lisa was a bit defensive here, in particular about refactoring. That is always a contentious claim and it is saying "you changed my words to mean something different", an actionable offense. If she is referring to this [48] then she is mistaken as that is reformatting, not refactoring. Also, her edit here was a bit harsh as well, where she is claiming he is edit warring. It wasn't a grave offense, but Lisa was a bit incivil.

He was actually complimentary, admitting "That's a very significant improvement, and if you did the same throughout the entire article I'd certainly reconsider my oppose." [49] just before being accused of edit warring. Malleus was helping, editing the article, giving constructive criticism, being open minded and he was met with some hostility, and I thought he handled it rather patiently.

Now, my experience with Lisa has been a positive one. I've helped in several areas, and I've seen Lisa being open minded to changes (ie: licensing wording for IE9) but Lisa may just not know or understand Malleus. However, jumping to unfounded conclusions, ramping up the drama by making the over the top summary statements and claims of edit warring and refactoring, while relatively mild and not something I would get involved in as an admin, are nonetheless ineffective at winning friends. And telling Malleus to not start a sentence with "But", well, it was gratuitous and combative.

Arguing grammar and structure with Malleus is foolish, almost laughable, as that is what he is expert at. There have been several times when I (quietly) thought Malleus was mistaken about them, but soon learned that I was looking at a single sentence while he was viewing the big picture, and of course I was mistaken. He doesn't give verbose replies and his words are precise, so precise that if you don't pay attention, you miss that he already "gets it" and is several moves ahead of you. The key to working with Malleus is to let him do what he does best, respect him for that, and if you disagree, just wait a while and you might learn why it is you that is mistaken. He is the same way, and doesn't pretend to be expert in areas he is not.

Working with Malleus takes a little patience, admittedly. Not because he does anything wrong, but because of the way his mind works, always many steps ahead but he doesn't communicate that way. I tend to take a humble attitude when dealing people who are more expert than I am in a given area, and like anyone else, I respond well to the same. Malleus can be quite kind and helpful when approached respectfully. He is also quick to lose respect when it isn't given to him. I can hardly blame him.

If I were Lisa, I would simply tell him "I went overboard and got a little rude and I'm truly sorry. I'm not seeing some of the grammar issues, but that isn't my area of expertise. I think the article is capable of achieving FAC status with some help. I know the technicals, you know the structure. Will you help me?" That doesn't mean he will, but I think that if you stick to what you do best, encourage others who are expert at structure to help you, you end up with great results. I quote the story of rock soup quite a bit, but it is how I think: Let me do the one part I do well, and get others to help me in ways that they are expert, and together we will build something better than the individual parts. But yes, it requires a bit of humility, patience and an open mind. If you and she were to approach him in this way, he would likely be very receptive. If he wasn't, then I would have a position to try to persuade him from. Right now, I don't. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, hey, Dennis! Hold your horse, good man. Have you forgotten? I, better than anyone else, know what is edit warring in theory and in practice and you don't have to ride four paragraphs on my sore spot to remind me of that. So just drop a hint, man, not a nuclear bomb! (In addition, I think it was I who told Codename Lisa to "get your head to gate".) I don't really know how can one tell his own opinion in Wikipedia without being accused of being combative? Don't one assume good faith? Okay, none assumed good faith in me but don't you Wikipedians assume good faith among yourselves? Of course not, silly me. That's why I left Wikipedia. Homo homini lupus est.

The solution you have proposed for Codename Lisa is, in my opinion, excellent. Lets hope she is watching your talk page. Or, lets hope one of your talk page stalkers email Codename Lisa. Or lets hope she is not one of the people who speaks no evil, hears no evil. Or, lets hope she hasn't lost it to despair. Or, lets hope she likes the taste of the bitter pie. Fleet Command (talk) 13:49, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mistake my verbosity as a statement on you. Being concise isn't my strong suit, and I just wanted to give you the full picture, with diffs, that is all. Reading more into it isn't necessary. As for Lisa, she stops by regularly, so I assume she would see it, which is why you might note it wasn't written to you as much to whomever is reading, including her. And to be clear, when I say "combative", I mean it in the sense of resisting the person, rather than their argument, something you likely see as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right, as long as you agree not read too much in my hurtful responses when my sore spot is hurt...

But... I still think you should intervene, not only on behalf of two editors whom you respect, but also on behalf Wikipedia, which is on the verge of losing an outstanding article. From a neutral point of view, both are respectable and both must behave themselves (but feel free to downplay whichever aspect you see fit). Codename Lisa must no give so quickly to despair, say not-so-polite things and must learn the difference between reformatting and refactoring; (I am assuming good faith that she does not;) and Malleus Fatuorum should not commit argumentum ad hominem or assume bad faith. Both must understand that editing Wikipedia takes a lot of energy and they must not act when they are feeling unwell.

And as for Codename Lisa, coming here a lot, I'm happy. Although, did she ever read or participate in a discussion in your talk page that was none of her business? I hope she did. Fleet Command (talk) 14:35, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you assume that I am or was feeling unwell? And you ought to know that I don't respond well to being told that I must do something. Malleus Fatuorum 14:47, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And there goes every last chance of compromise out the window. Dennis, dear, a private heads-up in my email would have been nice. Fleet Command (talk) 15:05, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have absolutely no intention of removing my oppose no matter who asks me to, so I'm rather surprised to see this request here. I tried to help with the article, but all I got in return was childish and insulting outbursts, not even one word of thanks. I really have more enjoyable things to do than to persist in such an unpleasant atmosphere. Malleus Fatuorum 14:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I know why Malleus Fatuorum. It is not article or the non-existent insults. It is because Codename Lisa has overdid you and you are jealous of the article, so you decided to ruin it. I mean "fancruft"? It was obvious from the beginning. Fleet Command (talk) 15:05, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really can't understand your gibberish. What does "Codename Lisa has overdid you" mean? In what way have I "ruined" the article? And why on Earth would I be feeling jealous? Have you any idea how many FAs I've written, and just as importantly, helped others to write? Would I have done that if I were prone to bouts of jealousy? Malleus Fatuorum 15:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Envy and vanity, mister expert. Microsoft Security Essentials is better than every FA that you have ever written and is nominated by brand-new user, so, envious, you decided to vote oppose from the beginning and don't pull it back, no matter what. I mean who would take insult with a "but"/"however" thing? Huh, I guess I'm wasting my time here. Good riddance, Wikipedians. Fleet Command (talk) 15:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're certainly wasting your time here with that sort of attitude, and you're certainly doing Codename Lisa no favours either. Malleus Fatuorum 15:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dennis, Fleet, Malleus

Dennis, thanks for inviting me here. This is one hell of a party!

Malleus, I'd like apologize for the inconvenience that I caused you. If I could undo all this, I would. As a general rule, I don't comment on people, so I simply say that there are lot going on here that I wish had not happened. Would you please accept my apology and help me work on the article?

Fleet, thanks for all the help you tried to lend but will you please excuse us?

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 15:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will, if you promise to remember that all I'm trying to do is to help you write the best possible article you can on MSE, not to trash or belittle your hard work because of envy or jealousy, as has been suggested. Malleus Fatuorum 15:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa, you could have no finer help than Malleus, I assure you. Many people have the wrong impression because they haven't taken the time to get to know him. He is blunt, honest and highly skilled. I can assure you that if you are open minded, you will learn a great deal from the experience, and be a better editor for it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:10, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Malleus

This is a bargain! Or if it isn't, I don't know if anything called bargain exist in this world.

Just a notice: I have a ticket and I'll not be available within the next 48 hours on a consistent basis (just intermittently).

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 19:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While you're here then Lisa one quick question I ought to have asked you before. Do you have any objection to my continuing to move citations into References section? I find it makes the text much easier to edit if all the citations are collected together, but I understand that some editors object. Malleus Fatuorum 19:49, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. No, no objection. After all, it is a technical change that only affects editor and in a good way. But can I also ask a question? I think MOS:LAYOUT says explanatory notes should be placed in a "Notes" or "Footnotes" section above "References" section. Am I wrong? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:01, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We can do that if you like, although I don't think it matters either way. I always include the Notes section as the first subsection of References and nobody has ever complained at FAC or elsewhere. But feel free to move it if you want to. Malleus Fatuorum 20:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to put this to bed, I've now felt able to withdraw my oppose; not because anyone asked me to, but because I now believe that the article meets the FA criteria with respect to prose. And despite Fleet Command's rather astonishing and incomprehensible outbursts above I wish Codename Lisa luck with the rest of the review. Malleus Fatuorum 20:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not 100% positive, so I'd like a second opinion, but would this newly created user space page: User:Bulwersator/should be deleted, be considered a violation of the users topic ban? Seems to me that he is "recommending" images for deletion, if not technically doing so.--JOJ ^Hutton 14:41, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• In my opinion, that is a violation as it is an attempt to delete by proxy, by either persuasion of others, or as a list to do once the topic ban is lifted, and at the least, is a bad faith way of dealing with the issues that caused the topic ban. That might be worthy of discussion at WP:AN, and I would ask you ping me if you do so. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Denis, two editors have been engaged in a slow edit war over the colour the of precipitation line in weather boxes in various cities. Here are examples.[50][51] Their activities are not in the least disruptive because they are only recoloring a line of data. Nevertheless it would be nice if we could persuade them to have a discussion somewhere, rather than revert each other.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:00, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rather than me getting involved, why don't you start a discussion on the talk page? Put it to a pole, or read up on MOS and see if there is a color that is supposed to be used. I don't mind studying up if I'm needed, but I'm betting this can be handled without an admin, particularly since it isn't a heated situation. My time is a bit limited, so I try to not inject myself unless it is really required. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I realise we've disagreed in the past. But may I ask, would you consider it vandalism if someone were to change your edit, falsely attributing the wrong statement to the wrong source? I do for the simple reason that any editor following would consider that the cite failed to verify the claim. Effectively a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia - specifically WP:SNEAKY. I have another editor trying here [52] to quote you out of context. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:35, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I appreciate your open mindedness, and hope you know I will always be honest with anyone here regardless if we have disagreed in the past. Here, he might be overstated a bit, but you may be as well. My guess is both of you are acting in good faith but that the heat is just rising in the discussion. If there is a chance that someone is completely wrong, but did an action in good faith, then it isn't vandalism. After all, we all make mistakes so it is best to assume an error is accidental and deal only with correcting the facts instead of making observations on the person's intent. This look like a long and heated debate on a subject that I'm not familiar with, so it is very difficult for me to come in and simply say either you or he is wrong or right, so I won't, and offer this just as general advice. In the end, it is the content that matters, not the personality differences. It sounds like you two might need to use WP:DRN and let some outside editors help you hash it out. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Possible Topic Ban Violation of User:Bulwersator--JOJ ^Hutton 21:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the discussion atUser talk:Jasonasosa and my comments there? This wouldn't have happened if Bwilkins clearly linked to his alternative account, didn't use a sig that reads a different name than that of the alternative account, and didn't refer to himself as an Administrator unless he was posting from his account that clearly said he is an Administrator. Dougweller (talk) 18:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes I had, now archived but I reread just to be sure. This is one of a few concerns that have been expressed to me, most of which have been expressed privately. I was ec'ed out of commenting at the ANI, but in short, I think he needs to take a holiday from DRN/ANI completely, and gain a fresh perspective. I recommended as much before he was asked to drop the bit for a while, and have been supportive but still honest with him about the situation. I've never had any comment nor email replied to, and I don't think he is inclined to take any advice from me. To say I'm concerned would be an understatement. What I am seeing, in general, is not very helpful. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm off to bed but am considering opening a new ANI discussion tomorrow. I don't know why that was closed after less than 3 hours (by request apparently, but whose?). What do you think? Dougweller (talk) 20:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closure was requested by Jasonasosa, the OP ("Thanks all for your input. You may close it now.") ([53]).--Bbb23 (talk) 22:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Missed that somehow, but the closer says 'don't hesitate to reopen it' which I may do later this am after gym, breakfast. Dougweller (talk) 04:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I don't like drama-fests, I've decided not to and don't think I'd get much support as most people who posted there and on his talk page don't see the problem, although I'm convinced it's real. I was going to post to his talk page but that looks pretty pointless also. Why he sees a need to act like this I don't know, but if he does it again.... Dougweller (talk) 10:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked the editor, but do you think the user page edits need to be rev/deleted? I have virtually no experience with such things, but I didn't think the content or the edit summary should be visible. I started to do it myself and got bogged down in a wall of text, warnings, policy, and caveats, and chickened out.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Outright delete the entire page under G3 and G10. No useful content.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid me. I intended to delete the page (G10) before another editor, trying to be helpful, removed the content, and then I got hung up on rev/del. Thanks, Jasper, it's now deleted.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have an idea for your editor retention project consideration. I have to laugh after looking at your list of joiners that profess all this sweet soft touchy-feely love but I witnessed half of them indef the first fucker they can without even reading a single line of the events leading to their buddy whiner that instigated the lash-out ban in the first place. (How to sneak in a bitch huh? Just couldn't help it. Evan also tells me to cool down over a pint together. LOL) Anyway, after my turn off segue I still have some things to get off my chest before I return to my regularly scheduled edit name. (Gabe's and BS's heads are spinning now. ROFL! - Most of the these IP socks are pissed off IP editors that have most likely been doing a good job (in their own minds) and some guy comes along a lays a template on them accusing and containing a warning. Yeah "Welcome to WP but if you don't stop we are going to kick your ass, so hard!". Worst of all these hooligans don't identify themselves. If you have ever chatted in a forum of any kind these people are called "trolls". *1* ALL ADMINS SHOULD HAVE ID ATTACHED TO THEMSELVES SO NEWBIES KNOW THEY ARE JUST NOT GETTING TROLLED BY ANOTHER JERKOFF. - These sock blocker fools with the OCD (I didn't mention any names like BSr) need to have a max quota to stop pissing off the whole WP population and all new potential editors that will NEVER EVER take out an ID after seeing that crap shoved onto their plates. *2* THESE PEOPLE ARE OUT OF CONTROL WITH SWOLLEN HEADS SHOVED UP THEIR ASSES.

- Redemption Island. Perhaps it would be possible to shove minor infractions and maybe some more major infractions into a place called "Redemption Island". With or without their own talk page blocked these perceived offenders would be directed to the only page that would accept their editing inputs. There could possibly be more than one and "theme redemption island pages" so that offenders on the same vein (music with music, medical with medical) could swear, bitch and cuss at each other and possibly work some stuff out. Admins cruising by could look for redemption talk and release some of the offenders back to real life editing again with a smooth over talk (show of good faith) or just wait for their time outs to expire. Perhaps offenders wouldn't be so offended by a place to vent and admins would not have such (well the better ones LOL) nightmares about issuing quick corrections for perceived offences. This could act like a WP:Group Therapy bench. Perhaps seeing another editor cussing and swearing would cool some of the people down seeing this mirrored reflection of themselves. Sorry to hit 'n run but I doubt my IP will last long. I am already listed as one of the 149 sockpuppets for some Klottbott?? that probably died years ago. "t/The Redcoats are coming!". I'll be watching here...ooops, blocked for stalking DB...(just a joke to most of us now) LOL! You can only kick a dog so many times and then he doesnt care anymore. 99.251.149.32 (talk) 02:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another item. These "Redemption Island" pages could have the edits more than say ...a month old fall off the end intonothing. Just delete them. They would not be important and no storage would be wasted. Even propaganda signs could be put on the header of each themic room/forum "WP is good!" "WP is everything!" "Be part of making the online world better!". 99.251.149.32 (talk) 02:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Taking your question in good faith (and you sound rushed and a bit scattered, so pardon me if I answer them in a different order), I would say some of what you are saying is already on the way with pending changes, something I honestly need to read up more on since I will be using it here. This makes edits from IPs and new users "not live", and in a cue, so there is less reaction. The changes will have to be approved by admins, or in most cases, by fellow editors that are approved for accepting changes.

Yeah I am not a good typer and my thoughts were scratched down very quickly before my ban comes again. I am already being chased. I have to re-edit things for an hour to get decent thoughts into type. 99.251.149.32 (talk) 03:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem with having a place to vent is that Wikipedia isn't a forum, and I think that would degrade quickly. There are other sites for that. I'm entirely tolerant of heated debate and a fair amount of off topic banter as long as the general purpose is at least remotely about building an encyclopedia. This is a community project, and as such, some banter, jokes, and off topic discussion is actually helpful. Having a place for venting wouldn't be. I am probably more tolerant of venting on an editors talk page than most, but that is about as far as I see it going, simply because we are an encyclopedia, not a social media site. I will say that Floq suggested something similar, semiprotecting the talk page of one contentious article, and making a sub page for IPs and heated debate, so that idea just might get tested. Maybe. I am ok with testing it.

I realize that WP is not a forum but a place for all the prisoners to chat might self-solve some of the hostilities when thye find they were not the only one and others have problems too. I have often watched as some new sucker gets jumped on and thought "No kidding! This guy is green as grass and asking for trouble" Five minutes later wondered why some other guy was a such a jerk to me???mI would be sure the other guy watching me would realize the same thing. "Forest for the trees", thing? Group therapy works sometimes. The pages would have to be limited to so many days or so many kB of chatter. 99.251.149.32 (talk) 03:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• As for making admins "known", I'm guessing like a tag or image that shows up in our signatures, or some other simple sign that says "I am an admin", I see you logic but there are two problems with that. When I am on an article that I simply edit, like List of nocturnal animals, I have exactly zero extra authority, and that sign in my sig might be taken as a sign of authority, and intimidate other editors, making them hesitate to revert or modify my changes. That is a bad thing. I am not a better editor by virtue of being an admin. I would argue that I became an admin because I recognize that at best, I am an average editor but have other skills better suited to being an admin. Our best content contributors are NOT admin, for that matter. A tag in our sigs or other automatically visible sign would just cause too many hard feelings and problems. Unlike forums, we don't police as much as we simply clean up. I haven't thought about simply telling them I'm an admin when I template or warn them, but then again, the vast majority of templates and/or warnings given to editors aren't done by admin, they are done by regular users. Even IPs. We admin probably give less than five percent of them.

They would need two accounts with the same name and have to have policies not to admin challenging editors. Mosy of my troubles have been with admins threatening me and I thought they were just power jerks. Maybe they were too??...LOL 99.251.149.32 (talk) 03:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• As for the admins who are "block happy", I agree that some are, and I've been quite vocal about it. I will quickly block such as vandals, trolls and known returning socks of disruptive editors. The key to persuading other admins to take a more patient approach is by successful example. Show them it works, politely comment when you think a block is inappropriate. In a few cases, I've just reversed the block. Most admins, however, are actually pretty nice guys, the few that are too gruff are just easier to spot, so it looks worse than it is. I've watched two desysop actions just recently for improper action with the tools, so it is policed better than most people realize.

Trouble is there a few that display horrid behaviour andblock everything that moves. Look at my case for instance. I have over, what? about 50 or 60 IPs associated with my account. I can tell you honestly that about five of them were actually me. The rest are just a scapegoat kick-dog to rid certain editors of contrary view editors that certain editors ie. GabeMc and Evanh2008 are afraid of in a real pissing contest of logic. You have conpletely disruptive jerks like BullRangifer with his multiple sock names and accounts blocking everything that moves. From my POV I can identify about 20 or 30 IPs that are probably socks of accounts that are too afraid to come forward and say anything negative about these fools currently ruining WP. Have a look at the history of say Evanh2008 or GabeMc for some examples. Any person that has ever complained about their behaviour has been punished for attempting to curb their abrsive/battleground behaviours. Then you have admins like Feezo and Mr Stradivarious that promote this behaviour by removing history of a complaintant posted on one of the abuser's pages. I saw it before it disapeared, shortly after Evanh2008 launched an ANI case against the guy and had him banned. The history demonstrated a complete reverse f the result and somebody should have their pee-pee slapped for that one. Yet if I make an edit on a same page that a suspect from five years back did I get blocked for being a sockpuppet? WP is doomed with this attitude and the rise of the sockpuppets are a result of account editors going underground and getting their last hope of correcting things inserted. WP is currently a fucking joke as it is overrun with sock blocking hyenas ad it is about to get a lot worse until it is ruined. Have them keep shooting everything that moves and the guerilla tactic will increase as it becomes the latest sport. Try reading some non-WP websites about this. The tactics are becoming conversation pieces on how to do it best. What does WP do about it? Block the use of any of those website URLs displaying further dishonesty, and it is very apparent to the clear thinking crowd. Good luck. I would love to help but WP wants me to hate it the best I can rght now. Iahevn't proof read any of thisas I only have disgust for this place, right now and don't want to spend another second of my time. /rant off 99.251.149.32 (talk) 18:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• As for "sock blocker fools", I'm an SPI clerk, so the vast majority of my blocks are specifically for sockpuppeting. I seldom block for behavior, as I've had pretty good luck convincing editors to stop bad behavior. 90% of my blocks are sock or block evasion related. I explain that pretty well on the talk page at WP:WER, so I won't labor it here. Sorry for being verbose and the likely grammar and spelling errors, but it is 11pm here on the East Coast, and I'm off to bed, but figured I would give you a quick reply before I do. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you much for you reply and consideration. I have watched some of your work and respect it mostly. 99.251.149.32 (talk) 03:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dennis,
pointing out this edit vis-à-vis Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Morning277. I can't see a direct technical connection, but this particular edit on this particular article makes a connection very likely in my eyes. You seemed to have a better understanding of the case than I do, any insights?
Cheers, Amalthea 09:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Hard to me to tell from just one edit, but worth watching. The COI elements are pretty hard to ignore in that one edit, but pinning down who is more difficult. As I said in the original SPI, I still think that Morning was more than one person, but was impossible to break apart due to the use of webhosts and proxies. The IP seems related but we never had an IPs in that case, so I don't have any geolocation info. Still on my first cup for the day, may look closer later on. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you are looking for more, this one is Morning277, or editing on his behalf. - Bilby (talk)

I just sent one of his articles to AfD. He actually did a fine job of writing and formatting, but it is still non-notable spam. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ziptask That might be the best way of dealing with this stuff, removing the financial gain if they can't bother to write about notable subjects. Again, if I learned anything last time, it is that it's hard, or impossible really, to pin down some of these socks without CU data. The COI is obvious, but the styles are very similar in many unrelated COI accounts as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qais Al-Khonji for that matter. Using reliable sources only for general links to his industry, to hide the non-notability. As I said there, not as clever as it might seem. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CU data is not as helpful here than you might think, I'm afraid. At least not in the long term, with fresh info like Bilby's above it helps to immediately confirm LifeLongVegas (talk · contribs) and RileyTomTom (talk · contribs), and a couple more candidates that I will keep close watch on. I have not looked at their article creations.
Amalthea 12:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm keeping a general eye out for him. I can pretty much confirm User:RileyTomTom based on Dion von Moltke - that fills in one of the gaps I was missing. The problem is that we tend to spot them after they would have been paid, which limits the effectivness. - Bilby (talk) 12:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I know, webhosts and proxies, I am sure. And since half the COI editors use the exact same methods (what, is there a school for this somewhere??) it makes it hard to accurately pin them down to the proper master. You end up making ugly "obviously a sock of someone" blocks. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A school is an interesting thought. :) Although one thing I've been noticing in the last couple of months is a growing tendency for the freelance paid editors to work together - sometimes as a result of shared contracts, but sometimes it just looks like a bit of informal subcontracting. And more recently some of the bigger players have been formally hiring groups of subcontractors, presumably both to handle demand and to distribute the accounts. - Bilby (talk) 12:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another batch that are the same, but no direct connection to Morning277 so needs double-checking please:

• CrystalBlue2012 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• FrenchFriedAnything (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• MKDS (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

If you're tired of this hijacking of your talk page feel free to move to SPI ;)
Regarding payment, I know that one person who offered paid editing service also ensured that it wouldn't get deleted for a certain time -- so if we catch them quickly enough it may still be a disincentive. Amalthea 12:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One more possible one, again not really connected technically, only through ... magic: HappyTwoBEE (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). Amalthea 13:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a catch 22, because if we can't make a link to a specific puppetmaster, it is hard to move to SPI. Editing for profit, for all intent and purposes, is not against any policy. Starting with an article in the sandbox is so common, I am not sure that I can link them to anyone. Almost all sockpuppeting COI editors do that, hit and run editing. This is why CU and blocking proxies is so important, as well as shipping the articles off to AFD/CSD. Just looking at the surface, the basic habits, I could link them to any number of COI socks. The only reason we linked so many at Morning277 was not because they all linked to each other, but there was technical data that linked subgroups within subgroups, in the logs. Had I been forced to make the connections purely on behavior, I'm not sure I could have. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've sent a bunch to AfD. One of the articles is borderline notable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can always catch some with the job ads, though. If a known sockpuppeteer accepts a contract, and we detect which account was used to complete the job, then we have some pretty solid behavioural evidence. That covers both MiddleMan2127 and RileyTomTom, although the latter has some supporting evidence to cover a less clear contract. I agree that we can't act just because someone is being paid to edit, and nor do I feel that we should. But the contracts can reveal the socks..- Bilby (talk) 14:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that I'm not the only one who thinks that we will just have to track these down one by one and delete them. I guess I'm going to have to start working new page patrol again, as I can't believe this fluff is getting by them. I guess they see all the (bad) sources and think they are ok, when in fact they are not. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, I'm taking a bit of a break from SPI right now. I may do some minor things, but some recent events off wiki have kind of knocked the joy out of it and admin'ing in general. If not for a few other important issues that I am working on, I would likely take a wikibreak. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The investigation showed the other three users were related, NOT ME. Yet my username shows I'm "blocked indefinitely" although I STILL seem to be able to edit Wikipedia. Did user:AGK add this tag to my user page by mistake? Thanks. Khestwol (talk) 15:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm going to assume he did based on the investigation and the fact that he didn't block you. Additionally, since your user page was previously a red link before he mistakenly tagged you, I have deleted your user page with a note to that effect, restoring it to uncreated. It likely started when I mistakenly added you to the original SPI. We use scripts that do the tags for us automatically, so we don't have to go to each page. Your name likely got caught up in the script since it was there originally, an innocent mistake that is now corrected. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]