Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Flyer22 Frozen (talk | contribs) at 22:20, 9 September 2012 (→Oxycut sockpuppet: Reply.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Deletion review for Moral and national education

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Moral and national education. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Talkback template

Possible course of action against an edit warrior

Hello Dennis

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.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 18:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• Are you sure it is freeware? Before jumping in, I went and looked at the license itself which requires that you own a MS operating system, and the license itself is a supplement license, not a regular license, and it is a supplement to a licensed product that isn't free of charge. That is the kicker to me, that the license isn't stand alone, but is issued only a supplement to a variety of products, all MS operating systems. As to the "type" of license, that depends on the system it is installed on, so two different computers can have completely different licensing, depending on the MS-EULA of that particular machine, and if it has been updated, then that EULA has been updated too, so there are at least a dozen possible "licenses" that this could supplement. In that case, "MS-EULA" is very likely the most accurate way to describe it, since the IE9 license does not exist without one of the various end user agreements from MS. "Freeware" is a marketing term, not a legally defined license type anyway, and MS is known for their creative use of the words "free" and "open source". Now, I could be completely wrong here, but at the very least, there is a very good and plausible reason why "freeware" is not accurate, even if some sources have used the phrase. Likely, other sources can be found, or will be, that dispute the term. Because of that, WP:BRD comes into play, and I think it will require more work on the talk page. You both have reasonable arguments, your's based on the use in sources, their argument (which is likely similar to mine here) based on the technical merits of the license itself, which never uses the word "free" once, yet has the phrase "You may not use it if you do not have a license for the software.", which is a limitation beyond traditional "freeware", and into the realm of "no extra cost if you already bought our other product", which is not how "freeware" is defined any place I have seen the phrase used. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, again

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.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 20:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh that? Pffft. We all will double revert from time to time. I didn't labor it because you obviously had no intention of laboring it, you were on the talk page working with others, and you sought outside advice. Your actions were wouldn't even be on my radar for "edit warring". You are acting in the spirit of WP:BRD, that is all we can ask of our fellow editors. My comment there was just about how you can have more than 2 words in an info box, not what goes in the info box. Accuracy always trumps pithiness in an infobox. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello

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.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 06:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Optimism is always my first choice. Misplaced Pages is supposed to be fun, after all. Altruistic, but fun and personally rewarding, so a positive outlook on all things is healthy, particularly since I have to mop up around here. And...those multiple reverts do seems a bit WP:POINTy, but not actionable at this time. Keep me posted. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. It seems you are not invite to DRN. Well, I don't comment on "should" or "should not" here. Just know that a DRN entry is open at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard § Talk:Internet Explorer. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like a perfectly logical way to deal with the dispute. Since I've expressed an opinion, it is likely better I sit it out. I'm confident that you all will be able to work it out there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

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)

offer of help

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 will be glad to help. I'm short on time this afternoon, but will email you later today. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:02, 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 Misplaced Pages'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've found that if I try to be the kind of help that I wish I had when I was new, things usually work out. The upside is that people whom you help when they are new, typically do not forget this and are often the ones you can rely on when you need some help in some area that they are knowledgeable, so it becomes a win/win situation. Taking the time to explain things in plain English and in a non-confrontational way is always helpful to new users. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• I think it all comes back to trying very hard to look at Misplaced Pages 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)

Crimean Karaites/Turkic Karaites disputed move

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 Misplaced Pages: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.

Please could you move the page back to its old name to facilitate a move discussion.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

•  Done. I've left a note on the talk page of the article, after reverting the blanking, that explains it should not be moved again until a consensus forms that establishes that a move is appropriate. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

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)

• I moved the tags to the bottom of the page to discuss, I think you just do them in line. I haven't done a lot of move discussions, so not completely sure, but think that it just goes in the regular page and the bot will list it from there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again. Kaz 22:53, 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)

No cut and paste, can't do that via the license and is a mess to fix. I will take a look at the consensus view to see exactly what needs to be done in a bit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it is just early, but I do not see a consensus to move the article on the talk page and would strongly suggest not trying to until and if there is. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:42, 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)

Then we need better admin than me to go in and revert and merge all of that. That is a serious problem for the license. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Nozdref

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)

• That is one of those things that I think you need to start at the talk page, then hit WP:DRN with. I tend to think you are correct here, but I'm not familiar enough with the subject matter to speak with any degree of authority. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:24, 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)

• Like I said, a content dispute needs to start on the talk page, then go to DRN if a consensus can't be reached, which is why I stayed out of it as I'm not active nor expert in subject matters relating to Turkey and the Ottoman Empire. And any user is free to ask advice anytime here, but as you can see, I recommended he use the talk page as well so no hard was done. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I know. Just wanted to respond to the personal slander he wrote. Thank you, nevertheless. Nozdref (talk) 14:19, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Djjazzyb

Thanks for helping me with User:Djjazzyb. I think he attacked both you and Sjones23 with this message on his sandbox talk page.--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 19:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oh, I'm not worried if he is mad at me. If he makes attacking comments about others, however, I will have no choice but to block him. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• As a matter of fact, you was the only person I 'attacked' in my sandbox thank you very much Mike.

Dennis, to be perfectly honest, IDGAF if you block me or whatever, I have contributed a lot to this site in the past few weeks and I don't appreciate Mikeymike2001 & other users trying to undermine me & my contributions when all I asked for was a simple explanation. Kane (talk) 07:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• • You don't attack other edits here, period, regardless of how much you have contributed in the last few weeks. I've contributed almost 27,000 edits in 6 years and I would expect to be blocked if I made personal attacks against others. You are not exempt from the policies on civility and personal attacks due to the work you've done over the last few weeks. Tone it back, stop attacking, or you leave me no choice. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• • • So what if you were kind of new here, someone deleted your contributionsto an article, you asked nicely for an explanation as to why said user DID NOT MENTION SAID DELETION IN SAID ARTICLES TALK PAGE AS SAID USER IS SUPPOSED TO? Would that not absolutely piss you off? Yes my actions as of late have been immature but in my opinion they are also justifiable within User:Mikeymike2001's refusal to follow Wiki guidelines. Kane (talk) 14:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
      • They aren't justifiable. It is fine to be frustrated or pissed or mad or any other range of emotions. It isn't ok to act out on them. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopaedia, not a forum or blog. We require a degree of civility. I'm tolerant of disagreements and a little heated dialog, but not of personal attacks. Attack their logic, their arguments, but not the person. Point out the flaws in their argument, but you don't call someone a "dick" here, even if they are being a dick. As for removing your contributions, this is Misplaced Pages, everything you write here will be mercilessly edited, changed, added to, taken from, copied and/or removed. That is how a wiki works. Do you and I a favour and read WP:Five pillars. It is very short, and a summation of what we are and how we do it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
        • OK, well I'll give that a read, and I understand what you're saying and that I was out of line by making personal attacks. While I'm not going to apologise for my recent actions to Mikeymike2001 as I'm far to proud; I solemnly swear to make sure that this type of behaviour does not happen from me again and all my content added will be encyclopaedic and verifiable and never personal. I just want to put the last 2 or 3 days behind us. Kane (talk) 22:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
          • Sounds like a plan. I've been here 6 years now, and an admin less than a year. I find that that pride is a two edge sword (here and in the real world). A little of it insures you create good content. Too much of it can prevent you from admitting a mistake, or from getting along. I gave up on pride a long time ago, personally, and just focus on doing my small part in building what I think is the most important collection of facts and information ever compiled by man, Misplaced Pages. Just something to think about. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

YRC/Cirt/Prioryman debacle

I just made the terrible mistake of reading the latest YRC/Prioryman drama. Since you seem to be one of the few level-headed people over there, I picked you to run this by. Through the whole thing, one thought kept recurring to me: What if the Wikipediocracy poster is Prioryman? Have I been spending too much time reading conspiracy theories? Bobby Tables (talk) 20:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• Maybe, but the point is, we aren't sure who it is. It may very well be him, but in order to take as drastic of action as was being suggested, we need to be very sure, and we aren't. As to Prioryman posting it, however, I sincerely doubt it based on my experiences with him. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree, that's extremely unlikely. And one of YRC's supporters and Prioryman's detractors is Cla68, a 'global moderator' there. Dennis, do you agree that fear of this sort of off-wiki attempts at outing, no matter who it is who is doing it there, is part of the editor retention problem? And if so, what do you think should be done if and when YRC returns to edit? And, hmm, now that I think about it, we have editors here who are in that thread and don't seem to be discouraging the request to out Cirt. Hadn't thought about that until just now. And taking a pause to look at the thread, one of the latest posts says "Setting aside the is-delhidan-riorob question, was there really anything that terrible about the initial "if anyone has anything on Cirt, expose it" comment in the first place? The Serens and the Dougwellers of that ANI thread act like he shat on the rug and hit on his grandmother while singing Springtime for Hitler." I'd really like your take on this. As someone who edits with their real name, I feel very strongly that those who do not should have their privacy protected as much as we can. Dougweller (talk) 08:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Might I add to this, and away from the place where springtime for hitler is hitting the fan, that privacy online is an illusion. Despite folk wish to be private, being truly anonymous just cannot ever happen. By creating a brouhaha about this and other incidents do we not increase the illusion of privacy and thus help foster a gullibility among the, well, the gullible? Editors will stay or go at their absolute whim. Some will be affected by this incident, others by the fact that today is Thursday. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Doug, I completely agree that fear of outing does lose us a few editors, and that activities off-wiki can be considered for sanctions here in limited circumstances, but again, the issue is one of verification. We have enough trouble determining socks here, with checkuser and logs. Trying to match up editors on another site without disclosure here is fraught with problems, like this case with YRC. You also lose editors if they think our admin processes are more akin to a witch hunt or mob rule. My biggest concern is process, that the smallest among us gets the same fair treatment as the most popular. To me, that is at least as influential in editor retention as anything, as no one will want to be here if the admin process is unfair or uneven, and it is currently far from perfect. I agree with your conclusion that if we knew it was YRC trying to out someone, an indef would be warranted, there is no argument there. It is how we determine "guilt" that differs here, not the punishment. The process itself is bigger than any single case.

And Fiddle, I agree that privacy is an illusion. This is part of the reason why I changed my name to my real name a few years back, even post my picture here and don't hide that I live in Lexington, NC. Anyone smart enough could mail me a letter with very little searching. I find this keeps me honest. My life situation is such that no one can threaten my job status and I'm not concerned with personal threats for other reasons. I understand that not everyone can be so open, however, so we have to protect their privacy. In the end, everyone is outed on the internet eventually. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Now that is vital information, because I need to know where I can get a quick meal on a Sunday night driving between Charlotte and Greensboro (well, really Raleigh but we need to eat long before then). And I think I agree with what you've said above. Note that I've asked Prioryman to stay away from YRC as much as possible. Dougweller (talk) 12:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Exit 91 is the first Lexington exit and has all the eats. Applebee's and Cracker barrel (right, then right), Golden Coral (right, then left) is just a mile off, every fast food is within a mile (left: McD, Wendy's, KFC. right: Arbys, BK, Taco Bell, Zaxby's). Turn left at the end of the exit for half a mile and eat at Jimmy's BBQ (on the right) if you like Lexington style, they are my choice. A mile further on the right is Oceanview Seafood, which is pretty good. It is very easy to get on and off I85 there and there are several gas stations there as well. here is a map of that intersection. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

If I dropped off some urgent dry-cleaning, quite near Exit 91, late on Saturday, do you think you could get it back to me, via Wendy's, for noon next Tuesday? haha. But seriously, Dennis, you are literally the friendliest face in the Admin team, by far. Use of your real name, real picture, etc. is a real breath of fresh-air here. And has helped to produce the kind of profile to whixh all admins should really aspire. Kindest regards. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 14:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC) (shy ip editor) p.s. Springtime For Hilter is quite a jolly tune, really.

Thanks Dennis. I'm torn. We really prefer western North Carolina style BBQ, ie sweet tomato-based. So it's a toss-up, Lexington style (which of course is famous) or the Sonny's in Concord. When we want to stop will probably be the deciding factor. Dougweller (talk) 14:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'm from Texas originally, so I do barbecue completely different than anyone here. I'm smoking out about 14 pounds of pork ribs this weekend, dry rub Texas style, plus chicken legs, country style ribs and sausage. About 10 of us getting together to drink beer, wine and eat Q. If it was Saturday evening around 6 or 7pm, you could stop by. I'm close to the Interstate. Maybe next time. Not sure if you live nearby or just passing through, not sure how much you want to volunteer here either. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I live in the UK, but am American - Jonathan Worth was a relative. My brother now lives near Burnsville in Yancey County and we're visiting him, but also visiting relatives in Raleigh (who are there simply because my cousin's a senior manager for Cisco and they've moved him there). I've never been east of Charlotte myself, but have been visiting the Asheville area, or rather Yancey County, for more decades than I like to remember. Oh, also spending several days in Houston on this trip so might try some Texas Q. Dougweller (talk) 19:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Indefinitely

What happens to my account? It's been a month since was banned indefinitely. I want to know if it can unlock and what to do. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Log&page=User%3AJjmihai&type=block — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.233.126 (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• WP:GAB has the information for unblock requests. I already linked this on your talk page. Do not edit from an IP again or I will have to block you, as even this request is block evasion. Read, email your request via the instructions. If you edit again from an IP, you will likely never have a chance to get unblocked, so take my warning serious. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:35, 30 August 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)

More vandalism from Zimmerman on the 98.204.146.142 IP. Could I get a block please? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Yet still more vandalism on WWDC (FM) according to his contribs. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

You seemed busy so I asked CharlieEchoTango for help. He blocked 98.204.146.142 for 72 hours for "disruptive editing". - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I've been in high demand lately, including at work. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I noticed, that's why I asked User:CharlieEchoTango, I figured you had enough on your plate with the insane amount of posts you were getting. So, no worries. :) Hope you get to slow down soon. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Jsteel7

Greetings Dennis. Can you have a look at Misplaced Pages: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)

• I've endorsed for CU, and noted on his page that we should wait until then. Not sure about this one yet. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Naturalistic pantheism

Any comments on this edit war? PP? Dougweller (talk) 18:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'm likely way too involved to act as an admin here, being deistic in philosophy and someone who has worked on deism (and theism) related articles. I see it went to AFD and was speedy kept via withdraw. Need someone less affiliated to look at it. This is one of the few topic areas I can't admin in. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
• I went ahead and made an appeal for more discussion on the talk page, but that and participating solely in an editorial role is all I can do. If it gets revert happy, I will take it to RFPP. I think they both just have different ideas and need to discuss it, I will do what I can to facilitate that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:21, 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)

Full protection is a method of preventing anyone from editing, forcing them to use the talk page, but is usually only done for 3 to 7 days. We need to try to look past the personal issues and focus on content here, put the past in the past if we can. If he is pushing a POV (I haven't looked close enough to tell) and it is problematic, I can't personally act since I'm too involved, but I can bring the issue up at the appropriate venue. Hopefully, that isn't necessary and we can just talk this out. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:50, 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 Misplaced Pages's articles and providing misleading information to Misplaced Pages 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)

The difference is that now I'm involved, and while I won't act as an admin here, I'm very confident that I can be neutral about content. This doesn't mean taking your side, this means taking Misplaced Pages's side and insuring that a discussion takes place. If it goes to DRN, ping me and I will be there as an editor as well. I don't have a preferred version here, just a desire to fix the article. And I have enough optimism for the two of us, so that is fine. When it gets protected, in a case like this, it is just frozen with whatever version exists at the time, with no endorsement of any version. Protecting isn't taking a stand on the content, it is just to force discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:11, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Another duck I missed

Only spotted this when looking at Commons logs, quite incriminating. Obviously Slythering Around32 was blocked here per Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Marquis de la Eirron/Archive#17 June 2012. The reason for the new Commons accounts is due to any new account adding Slythering Around32 images from Commons to articles here being pinged as a sock quite quickly. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:25, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• add a note in the case or just add to the list, I've asked for a sleeper check, which should make it pop up. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:26, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

•  Done 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:31, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Editor Retention

		The WikiProject Barnstar
		A barnstar for taking the initiative and effort to create the new WikiProject Editor Retention. A noble idea that has gained significant traction and new membership to the project. Thanks for your efforts to improve Misplaced Pages! Northamerica1000 23:39, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for the kindness, I appreciate it. Honestly, the members are very self-sufficient and deserve the credit for getting the community talking about these issues. I've been very humbled by the tremendous response by my fellow editors. We have a long way to go, but at least we have a lot of eyes on the problems, and more every day. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Microhosting

Hello,

We created a page about our company MicroHosting, But we receive a mail from your end, Page has been deleted.

Please help us for same, we want to add our company page with you, Please help us how to do .

Thank You Manoj Dhanda +91-8882088880 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manoj088880 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• I've replied on your talk page.

YGM

Not wiki related, just looking for some personal input on Linux stuff. Thanks. — Ched :  ?  09:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Range block

Thanks for the two range blocks. Your initial comment at ANI was a breath of fresh air.

Is there a way to see when looking at the contributions page of a range-blocked IP that they are blocked?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• Not that I'm aware of. I can count the times I've done range blocks on one hand. Fortunately, my day job lets me understand them a bit, but I haven't learned where that page is. There IS a page like that, you might ask on IRC in the SPI channel. I may do the same. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:04, 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)

• I can walk you through it, ping me on IRC and ....oh, never mind.... ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

TheGeneralUser (talk) 19:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• Replied there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:36, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Replied again. TheGeneralUser (talk) 19:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
    • I know. Every time an SPI page is updated, it pings me in IRC ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Whatthedog

Hey Dennis. Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Whatthedog seems like a pretty easy and obvious case which I'm quite sure can be easily endorsed by any SPI clerk :). TheGeneralUser (talk) 20:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• Exceptionally good SPI report, which really helps. Wasn't the shortest, but everything was on point with no superfluous prose, which is how we like them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks a lot for your nice and lovely compliments Dennis :) I am glad to help the project :). TheGeneralUser (talk) 09:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Legal threats

Denis - please look at: 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)

• I've addressed it on his talk page and in the article. If he continues to edit without striking it out and explaining it, I will be forced to block. Most admins would already have blocked but I'm trying to be understanding here. You are correct, editors can't do that as it causes a chilling effect on discussion, and that is one of the biggest things they drill into us admins, not allowing threats like that, even if it is an off hand remark. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:14, 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 , , and 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)

I'm not getting into games, or content or picking sides, Kaz. When it comes to anything that resembles a legal threat, admins have zero options. It isn't an area we are allowed to have our own opinion, actually. All I care about is that you strike that portion and clarify, and instead of instablocking (the typical response from most admins) I'm trying to simply make it clear that I don't care about the other content, just this one thing. I don't have a choice here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:43, 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)

The part about the Southhampton court. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Consider it done. Kaz 22:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

May I strike "court" and replace it with something like "car-park" or would that break another policy? Kaz 22:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Can we please keep this simple? This isn't a position I like being in any more than you, I assure you. I'm also reviewing the other edits, but waiting for your to finish your work. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

OK take a look now and let me know if it is still threatening. Kaz 23:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it is still considered a threat. As such, Dennis removed it. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I would have tried again if you let me know. Anyway no one can say I didn't try to make it a bit more light-hearted. Kaz 23:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

No, and I've removed the line myself. Look Kaz, you don't know me obviously, but I'm one of those guys that will bend over backwards to work with someone, but when you do stuff like that, add "tennis", then I feel like you are trolling me. I hate being forced to get involved in these kinds of dispute to begin with because I don't want to change the dynamic of the discussion with a block, but the majority of other admins would have just blocked you until you retracted the statement. I feel like you are taking my generosity and more gentle approach and try to slap me with it. It might not sound like a big deal to you, but to the Foundation, it is a big deal and if an admin overlooks this, we get our asses ripped. Since it was dropped on my talk page, I had no choice but to deal with it. I would hope you would treat me with the same respect I was treating you. You might not like that I had to say something, but again, most admins would have just blocked you on sight and let someone else deal with the aftermath. Next time I suggest you try a different approach, such as "Ok, will strike and explain, but please look at what this other person is doing". Going off wiki now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:18, 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)

I didn't block you, which is a pretty good sign I was assuming good faith ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:11, 4 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)

You aren't the only one. If you looked at histories, you would see I chewed on Kaz for the legal threat. I haven't singled anyone out, nor taken any side. I couldn't take a side if I wanted to, I don't know enough about the subject matter to fill a thimble, which is why it is easy for me to be neutral on it and focus on the behavior of everyone involved, which is unacceptable all around. All of you need to stop with the personal comments, including you, and focus on the content. Just stop it now, move on to discuss the content. I've made that point abundantly clear and I would prefer to not have to use more drastic actions in the dispute. You are all adults. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Gothic Forest

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 _{concerning my deeds.} 21:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• We are so amazingly backlogged right now, and several of us have been busier than usual in the real world to boot. I will look at it right now, and hopefully find some resolution. The master is too stale to do a checkuser, so it has to be a 100% behavioral determination, which sometimes takes a while to prove sufficiently to block. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
• Took less time than I thought. As I stated there, the shorter you make the report, simple with diffs, the more likely it gets reviewed sooner rather than later. We are volunteers, too, and we tend to grab the easiest cases first simply to shorten the list. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:30, 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 _{concerning my deeds.} 05:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

No problem, and sorry it took so long to get to. Even today, I'm just popping in for the basics, day job has me swamped. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Your reason for blocking

Re the IP you blocked here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:ANI#Request_additional_review_of_disruptive_editor. You accused it of disruptive editing . None of the edits appear to actually have been disruptive, though you may have disliked them for an.y number of ulterior reasons. Will you please post links to edits that were actually disruptive, and not simply unliked?

• The sum total of their edits are trolling, which is a form of disruption. If you are concerned that this was in error, you can always file a report at WP:ANI and ask for review. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Nomination to Sysop

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)

• I'm a bit backed up on admin requests, but if you can be patient, I will try to look at it later this week. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Mujhideen101

G'day, Dennis, sorry to trouble you. A little while ago you blocked Solomon.shirzada for being a sock puppet of Mujhideen101. I believe that the user is evading their block under the guise of Afghan1001. I could be wrong, and I'm trying to reach a compromise on Third Anglo-Afghan War, but would you mind taking a look? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 14:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

•  Done Blocked as an obvious sockpuppet of User:Mujhideen101. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Dennis. Have a good day. AustralianRupert (talk) 20:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

You may need to assist user SA's blood pressure

Finding nothing of particular notability about Jimmy Henchman, however hard I tried, I have sent it to AfD at Misplaced Pages: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 think SA will be fine but will keep an eye out. I tend to think that the person is notable, for that matter. This seems much more than a WP:BLP1E at first glance, particularly due to the scale, but time will tell. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:52, 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 agree that it is fine to disagree, I haven't looked close enough to have a firm opinion, just noted a lot of solid sources. As for SA, I've found that s/he is quite well balanced in the email discussions I have had. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:59, 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)

• Based on my conversations with SA, I get the feeling they have been greatly underestimated by myself and others. This is one smart person, much smarter than I. Of course, editing at Misplaced Pages is full of challenges and rules that aren't obvious and of course we all have to get along, but as far as editor capability, there really is no question that this person has a lot of offer Misplaced Pages. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:50, 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.

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
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 18:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Editor review/TheGeneralUser (2) Your review is required and will be greatly appreciated :)

Hi Dennis Brown ! I have started my second editor review at Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages and make it a more better place to be for Everyone :). Regards and Happy Editing! TheGeneralUser (talk) 19:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• I just finished one review, and I'm going to start on yours today. I have my own space for reviews, but will link it over at your editor review. Give me a few days. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
•  Done Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Blanket use of diacritics in article titles

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)

• Honestly, this is one area where I have to admit absolute and total ignorance, enough to not be able to offer an opinion on the subject. Sorry. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

RickWilliams75

Hi, Dennis. I have an urgent matter to discuss with you. RickWilliams75 (talk · contribs) was warned by Sergecross73 (talk · contribs) not to vandalize the Nickelback page. RickWilliams75 has also engaged in unconstructive comments towards Sergecross73. He was warned about incivility and personal attacks, which he used in the edit summary of this edit to the Title Fight page. Unfortunately, he continued to do so. What should be the best option in this case? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:31, 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. Sergecross73 msg me 18:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I've indef blocked. Either he has gone rogue as a troll, or it is a compromised account. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:49, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! ;) Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Blocked sock

Given this, are all edits by that user assumable as bad faith, and revertable? --Lexein (talk) 19:49, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• Technically, the user isn't banned, nor likely even de facto banned, so I wouldn't revert anything unless it was questionable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Let me clarify, I might HAT talk page edits, but not just blind revert. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:52, 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)
      • There have only been a few cases, he has been blocked less than a year, so you would be doing so a bit of risk to yourself as the consensus has been that this isn't the type of case you would call a de facto ban, buy a good margin. To me, a de facto banned user is one that if brought to WP:AN, there is no question that they would be banned, and this user doesn't qualify for that. I would oppose it, since there are a great many users with a great many more socks, that have reformed and come back to be productive editors. If there is any problem in his edits, reverting isn't an issue like you would any edit, but he isn't banned and can't be treated like he is. Not yet, anyway. Standard editing processes should be sufficient. Indef block doesn't mean forever, it means we don't know when or if it will end, and technically, any user that is not banned is still a member of the community. If he socks a few more times, then it would be more clear, until then, erring on the conservative side is consistent with previous cases. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppets

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

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

Compare to:

• Lagoo sab (talk · contribs)

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

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

• I'm a bit short on time tonight, you probably need to file an SPI report on it. Just popping in for a few minutes. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
  • 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 and I don't even edit the same pages as these editors. Now about Lysozym, he is a sockpuppet of User:Tajik (see at the bottom of his user page), then see his long history of getting blocked.
  • 2. 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)

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

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)

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

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. In June 2011 he created a fresh new account (Lysozym) without ever deactivating the previous one , 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 Misplaced Pages and Wikimedia. This new account is a global one - I use the same name in all Misplaced Pages-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)

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

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)

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

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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

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

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 , and some of these blocks are very strange such as this >> "with an expiry time of indefinite (wish granted)" , and then jumps from a week to indefinite.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 19:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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 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 , 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)

Closed case

Can you explain why the case has been closed while ip socks continue to evade an indefinite block?

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tirgil34&action=history

Mendsetting (talk) 22:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• If you would have checked before ranting here, you would see the IPs are blocked. You might try a different attitude in your approach. I blocked 82.113.122.166 and 89.204.136.52 for 6 months each, the ones you complained about. Those were the IPs listed in the IP sock sections. The one other IP, 80.132.183.212, has only had one edit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Jsigned

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)

• I've replied there, but unless he gets the name via usurp, I'm confident the policy was specifically designed to prevent this very type of confusing causing, since there would be no warning when you left a talk page comment. I thought I had covered it fairly delicately, it wasn't used as grounds to block him, I told him he had options and how to fix the problem. You added usurp, which is fine, but I didn't assume he was doing it to fool anyone, but the policy doesn't require malice, it is still a mistake for him to do that, hence my gentle and detailed explanation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Happy wikibirthday

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)

• Ah, so it is! Thank you for the kind note. Hopefully, others won't think I'm over the hill yet ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Unblock on hold

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 Misplaced Pages:WikiProject on open proxies/Requests. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I blocked two IPs at the same time,

• • 89.204.136.52 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • 82.113.122.166 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

both as open proxy servers at the same time. Technically identical so if one isn't, then both aren't. I might be mistaken, it happens. Was due to a sock case they came up as proxy servers, but not TOR and I might have jumped the gun on both. For now, I have changed the block to the softest block via proxy abuse, so registered users can use and create new accounts on these two IPs, but anons can't edit. If you feel it needs complete unprotection, I will have no hard feelings. Will review more, but I'm at work and time is a little limited. This should at least fix it so the registered user can edit immediately. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:54, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey; just a note to say that I did unblock those two, on CU review (and granted Richiez IPBE); hope that's OK. James F. (talk) 15:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

No problem, I'm not the law around here, just the janitor. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:24, 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)

• • The system just blocks and doesn't ask questions, it relies on us doing the homework, which isn't always simple. It would be very problematic adding those resources to the blocking process, and likely impossible. What they did was give you block exemption, which means even if your IP is blocked, you won't be. And doing a whois and using the available information doesn't always make it clear what type of connection the IP is. Checkusers have access to logs, which can provide more info, but normal admins like myself have no more access to info than you do. The vast majority of times, the block isn't an issue. If you keep running across it, that means a lot of people are using the NAT for vandalism, etc., which makes sense since it is a form of proxy that hides the original poster, mised in with many others. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:59, 6 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)

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

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

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

Your view

What do you think? It occurred to me, but ...--Bbb23 (talk) 21:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• Hard to tell based on one edit, the other two are pre block. You know the subject matter better than me, so you would be a better judge. I personally like to see at least 3 edits, the minimum to determine a pattern, when it is possible. It is a permanent IP, cable company, which means likely small business, no early indications of it being a proxy server, eastern Virginia , not sure what you know about him. You need to download zenmap , which is just a GUI for nmap that runs on windows, and learn a little about nmap. That and IRC ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:12, 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)

• It scans ports, which is a very controversial thing to do and illegal in some places, by the way. Normally, you would scan with no ping (most client system will refuse a ping nowadays, which is kind of rude) which is -Pn in zenmap, or -P0 in real nmap. If you see unusual ports open, that can help see if it is being used as a proxy server. You might want to read up on port scanning a bit (and ports in general), something every admin needs to learn a little about. I notice that are article is calling port scanning "an attack" which is complete bullshit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:47, 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)

Yea, I didn't want to get anything beyond tools, which in this case are common every day. I'm trying to get Bbb on IRC but he is having trouble....and I'm picking on him for it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:53, 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)

I'm using XChat which is free and easy to use. IRC peer pressure. :)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:07, 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)

I'm guessing that you have seen Misplaced Pages:IRC/Tutorial and this tutorial may help. Choose freenode from the server list as that is what Wiki is on and then paste your channel in the dialog box where it says "Join this channel" (#wikipedia-en-spi (direct link)) for the SPI channel.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:31, 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)
  • From my perspective the evidence is just a little weak to justify a block yet, so I suggest monitoring. It is hard to judge off of one edit, but I don't know the topic well enough. If the one edit is that obvious, then Bbb23 should block. As an outsider, it is more difficult for me to. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:07, 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)

passing something on to you

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)

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

Thank you for being on Misplaced Pages!

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

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

Template:Z147

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

Continued disruption by socks of a user you blocked

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

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

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

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)

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

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)

See "unlock on hold" above a few notches. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:22, 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)

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

ATA Tactical

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)

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

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

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)

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

Misplaced Pages made the front page of the Idaho Statesman

luna-becomes-subject-of-wiki-war

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

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

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 , 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 , which gives interesting stats, including only 135 edits in Misplaced Pages space. (read the OPTIN information at the bottom, and opt in) My comparison, I had a few thousand when I went for RfA, and over 18,000 total edits, but admittedly, I waited longer than I needed as I wasn't interested in admin previously.

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

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)

Padmalakshmisx

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

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

?

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

Timeshift9

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

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

Art4em / Hellartgirl question

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)

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

Favour please don't reject

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

• I've replied there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:45, 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 06:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

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

WP:ANI

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

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

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

Big Brother 14

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

| legendeject = Expelled

| legend5 = Jury Member

!--| legendwalk = Walked --

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

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

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)

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

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)

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

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)

Talkback

Oxycut sockpuppet

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

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)

• • I've got a request in at SPI for a CU sleeper check. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Oxycut where we found a whole drawer full of socks, all blocked now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
    • That editor could also be the umpteenth sock of DavidYork71 (talk · contribs), a master I'm unfamiliar with and so, since I had no technical evidence to compare these new accounts to, I could not make an assessment... Salvio 13:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
      • You might should ask Tnxman307 if he has any old data to compare with. He did the last CU. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
        • Very good idea, thanks! I've just shot him an e-mail. Cheers. Salvio 13:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
          • Let me know if they match up, I will do a rename/merge-hist on the cases. I only screw those up about half the time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
            • 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 myself (that English is not his first language and/or isn't something he's good 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)

Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9 (2nd nomination)

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

Battlegrounds

Hi Dennis,

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

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

Rumored vandalism

Hello,

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

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

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

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

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

Talkback

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

User talk:Francparler

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