This is an archive of past discussions with User:Dennis Brown. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi there. Is there a possibility of helping me convince User:Nozdref to look for consensus for his/her unilateral and controversial edits before realising them? Your help would be very much appreciated. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 21:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
After I wrote here the user changed his user name (or signature) and began to act as if he had "another" identity. I thank God for not being an Admin here... --E4024 (talk) 22:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
E4024, I don't know how to kindly ask this, but what the hell are you talking about? I just recently have noticed what you wrote here (thanks to clicking "What links here" in my userpage) and I've used different name for signature (which was linking to my own page anyway) for short amount of time and that was like months ago, not "after you wrote here". How am I supposed to change it "after you wrote this" when I wasn't even informed about what you were writing here and found it out by coincidence just today? Stop making falsified claims like this about me and talk behind myself where I'm not even around. It would be more appropriate if you discussed with me first in my own talk page where I could be able to respond, instead of just stalking me and directly complaining to an admin. Nozdref (talk) 23:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Greetings Dennis. Can you have a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jsteel7 and analyze the case. You can find all the statements and information on the investigations case page. User:Jsteel7 has made an unblock request and by having a solid CheckUser evidence than can be handled with ease and any more future socking detected can be reported on the investigation page. I didn't want any false claims and misunderstandings from my side or anyone else and had to relist the case so that there can be an open transparency for everyone to see and a clear decision can be made. Regards. TheGeneralUser (talk) 16:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Dennis I am glad a well-meaning senior editor has stopped by. You are absolutely right that user Allisgod and myself have different ideas. My idea is to provide accurate and neutral information that does not favoritise one version of Pantheism over another.
Allisgod is editing ideologically, not neutrally and his ideological goals are inconsistent with accuracy and neutrality. Ever since he appeared on the scene he had tried in three Pantheism articles (Pantheism, Classical Pantheism and Naturalistic Pantheism) to push determinism, Classical Pantheism, and Charles Hartshorne, and to remove references to Naturalistic Pantheism including an attempt to get the page deleted. His pattern of behavior has been blatantly obvious and openly stated. He is completely impervious to all attempts on my part to compromise or agree.
He started out with a lot of OR but he has now learned the rules and usually cites others. However, his source selections are biassed and his summaries of what they say are inaccurate and biassed towards determinism.
If you look at the Naturalistic Pantheism article you will see that he is repeatedly removing a perfectly good and increasingly well sourced history section and replaced a broad intro section with a few carefully selected misinterpreted quotes.
Dispute resolution does not work with him - he tries to turn it into a trial aiming at a verdict.
I am concerned that if this article gets Full protection, it should not be imposed based on one of his versions. How does that system work?--Naturalistic (talk) 20:45, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
I have never been bothered by the personal stuff - I have a thick skin. I am concerned about accuracy and neutrality, very concerned in this case, so I do focus on content on the one hand, but I have to answer Allisgod's endless series of personal attacks on me. I don't usually answer them by insulting him back, though I do point out his editing bias and his inaccurate use of sources because these are affecting Wikipedia's articles and providing misleading information to Wikipedia visitors.
I am really not optimistic about "talking it out" - I have tried this many times over, it has never worked. He invoked dispute resolution once instead of talking/compromising, and he used it to try to get sanctions against me, not to get the dispute resolved. And another time he went to Afd over Naturalistic Pantheism to get the whole article deleted, which you know about. If it's protected for 3 or 7 days - how do you decide which version to protect? In any case, given his mentality, it will all just start again as soon as the page is opened up.--Naturalistic (talk) 21:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
I hope you are doing well. It seems bothering you have become quite a habit! I am told that in case I run into a dispute with an edit warrior who has a history of edit warring, I must contact an administrator. So, here I am.
A few days ago, someone changed the licensing scheme of Internet Explorer 9 from "freeware" to "MS-EULA". I reverted the changed and then we discussed. He very polite, very understanding and very cooperative. We reached a consensus. "Freeware" got to stay. But now, the same issue seems to have attracted the attention of an edit ninja, one Schapel (talk·contribs). Like before, he changed, I reverted, I opened a discussion thread in his talk page and another in the article talk page. But he has hit the revert button again. I think it is wrong, is it not? WP:BRD says there is no second R in BRD.
I don't know what you can do but I contacted you because I feel unsafe: If anyone look at the article history, it will seem as if I am the edit warrior because I have two reverts of the same nature in succession. I will not counter-revert and will try to behave myself but I still feel unsafe.
Your input is welcome in the talk page but that is not why I called you. (I can discuss if necessary, then I can be a good negotiator, a modest winner or a loser with no hard feelings whatsoever.) My concerns here is what I wrote about in boldface. If you think I am being unnecessarily concerned, I won't discuss it.
Thanks for you optimism. Still, I am glad I contacted you when I did because the radar is about to get messy: User:Miros 0571 has reverted me in all other eight Internet Explorer articles. (I have a feeling has been stalking me ever since you blocked him for his gross insults in my talk page.) Overall, an admin who has not been monitoring the whole thing might have trouble telling who is the troublemaker. I'll stick to the discussion, will be nice with Miros and hope for the best.
Hey, Dennis. Hopefully, this is the last update. DRN passed a resolution. "MS-EULA" was abolished and "Proprietary, requires Windows license" was used as a compromise. I have applied DRN resolution to multiple IE articles and I am expecting User:Miros 0571 to hit the revert button on all of them. (I hope not.) Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Denis - User:Kaz unilaterally moved the article on Crimean Karaites to Turkic Karaites on 27 August without discussion. This was evidently a controversial move. I have posted messages on the the talk pages of Kaz, the editor who tried to revert this moe (using the wrong process) and the IP editor who reverted him/her. I have suggested that the move should be proposed on Wikipedia:Requested moves. Unfortunately, because an editor has edited the redirect page, it is not possible for me to move the page back to its old name so that the discussion can be in the form of Kaz explaining why the move should take place.
Hi Dennis, thank you for getting involved in the move, and thank you for bringing up the WP:BRD which is so often overlooked by the newer editors. Could you check to see if I have put all the tags are in the right place for the discussion now? Many thanks. Kaz 20:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Dennis, how do we go about restoring the Karaims article and making the Crimean Karaites article redirect there in this case? Is it just a matter of cut and paste? The articles have now been merged and the talk pages have also been merged, although it will be a pity to lose the original history of the Karaims page since it is the oldest version. Kaz 10:06, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I would point out that cutting and pasting is exactly what the users who moved the Karaims article and talk page to Crimean Karaites have been doing. It might be important to bare in mind later. Kaz 13:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
There's a list of range blocks, but that wouldn't be of much help unless for every IP contribution list you looked at, you also checked to see if the address was within a blocked range. The help on range blocks is typically wiki, both too much and too little - hard to follow, although I did finally manage to grasp (I think) that 0/24 means .0 through .255. I'll let you do the asking - I still haven't set up IRC (no comments, please).--Bbb23 (talk) 15:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Several people have suggested you would be a good person to serve as a mentor through the process. I'd like to take you up on it if it's still good. It's fine if you'd like to email me. all the best Scholarlyarticles (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I have been working to help Scholarlyarticles be better able to be receptive to your help, and we have made some good progress together, as you will see from their talk page. I've suggested a strategy there that may bear fruit. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
As you will see from the talk page there, it will take some time to help the editor be less sensitive and to understand that this is an impersonal place. The second of the two recent deletions removed what I hoped was helpful. Its not the fact f the deletion that interests me, but the content of the deletion, if you follow me. I'm not wedded to anything I write here, after all ) My thoughts are that the editor is receptive, but has not, so far, grasped what to be receptive of. One of the issues I see is that they are, probably, correct in what they wished to add to the Henchman article, but that Wikipedia's rules do not (yet) allow the addition. I found that a challenging concept to grasp when I joined, too. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
I think it all comes back to trying very hard to look at Wikipedia as the other person sees it before making any assumptions. The problem is that even the best of us make natural assumptions. Mine have often proved to be right, but as often proved to be wrong. Help is sometimes harder to receive than to offer. I sometimes suspect the reason is because we communicate using the typed word. The language has some precision, certainly, but it is important to ensure that the message as written is the message that has been read and understood. A simple example might be asking for conciseness. My conciseness having been here for some time means I try to be very brief while making my point Someone form a scientific discipline might see conciseness as putting the full argument forward with completeness and absolute precision. Each of us is concise in his own frame of reference. So, when I suggest conciseness I must remember that what I mean and what is understood may differ widely. I must not think "I asked for conciseness and I received a swathe of verbiage." There are other examples, but this one sprang to my mind. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
98.204.146.142/Zimmermanh1997
Zimmerman is back on 98.204.146.142 after the 12 hour block imposed on August 21 and vandalized the WLTF page. Seems he has done this previously using 68.84.142.155. Since you blocked him previously on 98.204.146.142, I thought I would let you handle it from here.
At the present time, Zimmerman has only used the 98.204.146.142 IP and not the 68.84.142.155 IP or Zimmermanh1997 account. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:26, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello. I see you're active in the sockpuppet investigations wing. Would it be all right if you checked out the above sockpuppet case please? I submitted it on August 20, 2012, but have not received much of a response yet. Thank you. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds.21:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of that. Although I do want lots of evidence for when I submit sockpuppet reports, I can see where you're coming from when you state that shorter and more simply presented cases are easier to digest. I'll keep in mind in the future that I should make any future sockpuppet reports look less like essays. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds.05:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Good afternoon Mr. Brown - I am writing to you on advice from WilliamH, whom I contacted to request a nomination for Adminship. If you have the time and will, I am ready to submit a brief resumé and grounds for my nomination. Greetings from Como, Italy :-).--Itemirus (talk) 14:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Finding nothing of particular notability about Jimmy Henchman, however hard I tried, I have sent it to AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jimmy Henchman to gain a community view. It may or may not survive. That is not why I'm dropping you this note. I am concerned that, without guidance, SA may get the wrong end of the stick and feel that the world is against him or her. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm not unduly concerned whether the article is kept or not. I don't think, currently, that he is notable, but I may be wrong. I'm used to being wrong. I'm as happy at AfD to be right as wrong. I like consensus, usually. I'm comfortable that you and I have different views on the gentleman;s notability. I may change mine and you may change yours. It would be fun if we both did that simultaneously. I'm glad that you're keeping an eye out. I'd hate SA to go bang rather than understand the process. I hope very much that SA will contribute to the discussion. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm pleased you are having good email discussions. I felt it worth alerting you in case the prior public face was the only face. I'm glad it is not and that we were both right and that there is am embryo excellent editor here. I'll be interested to see the eventual outcome of the deletion discussion. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
The challenge is that normal "real world" disciplines don't apply here. In academe there is real peer review. Here we have review by peers who are anything from erudite to less well endowed expressively, from opinionated to genuinely neutral. Every time we edit we expose ourselves to anything from praise to ridicule, even to being attacked. It takes a strong personality to survive the first run in with what we all call "an experienced editor". New editors from more rigorous disciplines, especially those who contribute scientific papers to real journals often fall foul of our bizarre and sometimes petty rules and procedures. WIkipedia is absolutely not a gentle place. I think SA is made of stern enough stuff to weather the baptism of fire. I hope s/he wants to, too. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow
In this issue:
Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
Research: The most recent DR data
Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
Denis - please look at:[2] Kaz now appears to be issuing legal threats to those who disagree with his crusade to change Crimean Karaites into muslims.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Have you not noticed Toddy1's game here yet Dennis? You are neutral right? Have you thought why didn't Toddy mention the personal attacks against me in the discussion pages? I recommend you read through and familiarize yourself with the topic that you got yourself involved in and who is trying to push what before you start to do the next thing that Toddy tells you to do here. WP:NPA ties your hands concerning [3], [4], and [5] and you might as well check out if he has any sock puppets while you are at it. Kaz 22:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Ok Res ipsa loquitur, what exact words (not too many now please) would you like me to strike, I will do so for the sake of continuing the discussion. But I expect to see equally harsh demands to the one who started it too please isn't that fair? Kaz 22:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Points taken, although I think you all would be better off to assume good faith. If someone repeatedly accused any of you of criminal activity that you yourself had been a hospitalized victim of, I wonder if you would be able to make light of it as quickly as I did for the sake of free speech, despite being socially disabled. You would all do well to read WP:NLT and especially WP:DOLT#The message better (not just the titles). Food for thought I think, just food for thought. Once again my sincere apologies for causing you any strife, it is genuinely unintended. But as per WP:DOLT#The message "How would you feel if it were you?" I will pursue things through the correct channels from now on. Peace. Kaz 23:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Why am I the only who has to go through all of these absurd accusations in this page? I'm noone else's sock puppet and any admin is free to check out and I don't know who Toddy1 is, he just seems like someone who doesn't agree with Kazification of the article. Seems like Kaz just is keen on giving wierdo accusation anyone else who doesn't agree with POV edits. There was barely personal attacks in my edits apart from just few words, yet he has issued personal attacks, legal threats, these sock puppet accusations many times, even responding to Toddy1 he begins his message with an ad hominem, I must admit he's taken very lightly at all. Nozdref (talk) 12:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
I wonder if WMF is aware of the relentless push—by a small bunch of editors and admins—towards the blanket use of diacritics in article titles as described here and here (article titles with diacritics bolded). The war started with European languages, and now is moving to Vietnamese. The situation seems a bit like Orwell's Animal Farm. Cross-posted from here. LittleBen (talk) 13:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
The user also refuses to take any responsibility for his unconstructive editing, such as in edits here or here, despite the plain-as-day difs that Sjones provided above, proving his poor editing. Let me know if you have any further questions on this user, Dennis. Or, as you can tell by looking at most of his contributions, just about every edit has been unconstructive and/or offensive. Thanks. Sergecross73msg me18:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Why wouldn't you consider him de facto banned? He is highly unlikely to ever be unblocked (at least by anyone who knows of his history) and I'd be more inclined to invoke WP:DENY in dealing with these sorts of disruptive trolls. --Tothwolf (talk) 01:49, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
No argument on anything else (see at ANI), but I see no sig forgery and I will oppose any such grounds. I'll show them the USURP stuff, which I'm dead sure they have no prior knowledge of. Regards! Franamax (talk) 00:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi Dennis Brown ! I have started my second editor review at Wikipedia:Editor review/TheGeneralUser (2). I will be greatly delighted, thankful and valued to have your review for me regarding my editing and possible candidate for Adminship. I see you also evaluate possible candidates for Adminship as you had chosen to do so on Wikipedia:Request an RfA nomination, so do evaluate me too! As you are a experienced and long term Wikipedian so i have asked for your kind review. Take your time to review my editing and give the best review that you can :). Feel free to ask me any questions you would like to on the review page itself. It will be a great honor to have you review me for which I will truly feel appreciated and helpful! I always work to improve Wikipedia and make it a more better place to be for Everyone :). Regards and Happy Editing! TheGeneralUser (talk) 19:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
It's coincidental, today was the first time I visited your userpage, and I noticed the userbox with your wikiage was announcing that today was your sixth wikibirthday. So, congrats are in order. (smile) Horologium(talk)13:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Dennis. There is an unblock request at User talk:Richiez, for a block you placed on 82.113.122.166 as an open proxy. The user says it is not an open proxy, and it looks to me as though he/she may well be right. The IP is certainly hosting a proxy, but I can find no evidence that it is an open proxy. Do you have any evidence that it is? I have also reported it to Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/Requests. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks to all, I can now edit fine. The technical situation seems like some computer expert should look at it to see whether there is some better solution. Those are 20 mio customers of a mobile provider behind NAT with dynamic addresses assigned from a several large pools. Obviously abuse will happen frequently with that many customers. Blocking IPs brings mostly frustration to innocent people, technically savvy people will disconnect/reconnect their connection and with high probability get a different IP. As far as I know it is possible to detect NAT and at the very least an admin trying to block some user behind a NAT should get a warning. Richiez (talk) 21:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Nag, nag, nag. I looked at zenmap, and it made me dizzy, but I'll download and experiment a bit with it before bitching again. As far as I know, settdigger himself is located in Los Angeles, but I have no clue how he accesses the Internet.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I downloaded it and its minimal interface. In this particular instance, what does it get me (for 98.166.131.84) that the website you used doesn't? Nmap/Zenmap reports that the "host seems down".--Bbb23 (talk) 22:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
(ec) I use nmap from the command line in the Bash shell...old-fashioned, I guess. Bbb23, you may want to consider the above thread and begin patrolling also. SPI could use the help and the staff would appreciate it. Per beans, you guys may want to move to IRC and leave techniques off here. — Berean Hunter(talk)22:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
I plan to download the paid software you mentioned but haven't gotten around to it (I've also been - and am still - under the weather). Feel free to remove anything from this topic you feel is inappropriate per Berean.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Even under the weather, I appreciate puns. Dennis already recommended XChat as being free and one used by many admins. I, ingrate that I am, complained that it wasn't intuitive, and I had too much trouble getting it to work. Given that others use it, I suppose it must just be me and my mindset. Dennis also recommended some non-freeware (mIRC), which is what I was referring to above.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Back to the original issue: I guess it's the blocked user venting and the only action to be taken is to monitor for further instances. If the latter occurs, the appropriate steps should be taken. Just my 2c.TMCk (talk) 00:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I think it's obvious for "involved" editors at least to be a meat puppet but if there won't be any further edits I don't think a block is needed for now.TMCk (talk) 00:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
SPI stuff
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)
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!PumpkinSkytalk21:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Sorry to bother you, but...
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)
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:
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)
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 [10] 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. [11]
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)
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)
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. [12] In June 2011 he created a fresh new account (Lysozym) without ever deactivating the previous one [13], 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)
"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)
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)
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)
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 [14], and some of these blocks are very strange such as this >> "with an expiry time of indefinite (wish granted)" [15], and then jumps from a week to indefinite.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 19:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
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)
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 [16] 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 [17], 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)
Feedback Please
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)
You can see my other admin reviews and criteria at User:Dennis Brown/RfA. I notice you have around 1300 edits [18], 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 [19], 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.
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)
?
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
Alexander Hamilton on slavery, deliberate falsification
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...
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)
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.[20] I never reverted him, but thankfully other editors have done so continuously. Thanks. --76.189.97.91 (talk) 01:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
":" 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)
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)
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)
(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)
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
Have you looked at the talk page of the Massoud article properly? I point you to this section which I started[21] 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
My recent post on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ([24]), 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)
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)
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)
Page Flip
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)
[25] 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 Basaliskinspect damage⁄berate21:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
Chris Gethard Show
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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: [34][35] (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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
See the new edits to Self-deportation as well as the discussion at WP:NORN, and the posts on my talk page. And [37]. 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)
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.--JOJHutton14:41, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Request for help - the colour the of precipitation line in weather boxes
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.[38][39] 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)
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 [40] to quote you out of context. Wee Curry Monstertalk16:35, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
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: [41], [42].
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:
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-TALK06:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
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.
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.
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. ⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues!08:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Did you read
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)
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)
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)
Rev/del
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)
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)
A request for action
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)
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 [57], 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.
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)
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 [58] 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." [59] 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.
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)
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)
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. MalleusFatuorum14:47, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
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. MalleusFatuorum14:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
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)
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? MalleusFatuorum15:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
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)
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?
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. MalleusFatuorum15:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
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. MalleusFatuorum19:49, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
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)
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. MalleusFatuorum20:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
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. MalleusFatuorum20:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Indeed it would, but I doubt the FAC delegates will take much account of the oppose as there's nothing of any substance behind it except malice and spite. MalleusFatuorum12:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Archive and hat. Points made, opinions read, but I want to avoid a pissing match with stalkers.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
