Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 92.7.0.136 (talk) at 20:19, 24 August 2012 (→HarveyCarter, again). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

HarveyCarter

92.7.26.188 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is him back again. Do I need to open an SPI (you won't get much more information than you can see from the contribs yourself), or can I save time? More background on him available if needed..... His charm hasn't disappeared! 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 16:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• I just did a softblock for NPA, which is close enough for our purposes. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks. I'll go to RFPP if he comes back, in case you're not around. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 16:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Sounds like a good idea, you can always point here if he starts in with attacks as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Since you're around according to my watchlist, semi-protection might be an idea due to 92.7.2.175 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Thanks. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah, couldn't sleep. Protected Black and Tans. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• And he's trolling on the talk page now. Blocking would be the preferable option to semi-protecting that too, at present anyway? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• I've nabbed the IP under block evasion. I'm about to go out for a bit, if he comes back, protection might be the key, but I hesitate to block talk pages unless there is a clear and obvious need that can't be dealt with otherwise. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah, that's why I suggested blocking rather than just asking for semi-protection. 92.7.8.86 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) sounds like a duck.... 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• Just a note: I opened an SPI on Portugalpete (who was stalking ONiH too) and User:FergusM1970. Portugalpete could also be this guy - I've asked for sleepers to be checked--Cailil 15:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

How to solve this.

I have a problem and I'm told you might be able to advise me on how to solve it. Rather than repeating myself, I'll point you at my most recent failed attempt. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Also see: User talk:Tide rolls#Still-24-45-42-125 / Belchfire and User talk:Tide rolls#Problem --Guy Macon (talk) 08:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I see User:Tide rolls has become involved. What I know of him, he seems quite reasonable and competent, so I would defer to him in the matter as there is not an advantage to having multiple admins trying to deal with a problem and stumbling over each other's feet. For what it's worth, Still, I think you wear your feelings a bit on your sleeve and this leads to you getting your feeling hurt from time to time, and you seem to have a very negative view of everyone you encounter, admin or not. I don't have any comment on the merits of this particular case as I haven't looked into it deeply enough to express and intelligent opinion in the matter, but you would probably do yourself a favor if you worried more about content and less about politics. As for outing, you clearly named yourself after your IP, and the geolocation of any IP is public domain info, which is why it is actually more anonymous to have a registered name that doesn't indicate your locale, but it seems a bit late for that. Of course, I use my real name and everyone knows I live in North Carolina, but I find this keeps me honest.

There is an old expression Birds of a feather, flock together, and finding groups that have the same ideas or goals is just as common on Misplaced Pages as it is in the real world. When several editors share the same opinion, it isn't a Cabal, it is like minded people. Often this forms the basis for a consensus. When this consensus is counter to neutrality or policy, WP:DRN is the first option, or an WP:RFC can be drafted that will allow the larger community to pipe in and restore neutrality within articles. This is the proper way to deal with disputes.

I'm pretty outspoken on many issues in the real world, although I don't edit the articles on the topic here so much, simply because I have other interests and things I'm better at, so they get my time. This includes LGBT advocacy, drug legalization, opening the borders and other Libertarian-like issues that could easily descend into bitter arguments, but don't. I don't catch a lot of heat for being so outspoken because of the tone I take, the method of communication I choose, to engage rather than be confrontational. There is something to be said about using persuasion rather than accusations, and accepting the fact that not everyone will agree with you so the goal should be to achieve balance. While I appreciate your perspectives on several issues, I don't appreciate your methods (or the methods of some others in these areas, for that matter) but the solution isn't to be more combative, it is to set the example by being civil. The other advantage is that if there is a dispute, your actions aren't being examined.

Let me be frank, admins are asked to inject themselves in a great many situations, including many to which we are not familiar with the subject matter. That is just how it is, and we do the best we can to determine a fair resolution. We are always going to look at the wheel that squeaks the loudest as the most likely cause of the problems, because most of the time, it is. We are forced to make judgement calls based on insufficient data all the time, doing the best we can to look at months of contribs, determine the motivations and actions, and make a final call, all within 30 minutes typically. We can't spend hours on a single case, or nothing would get done. You are better off if you insure there isn't a reason to doubt your judgement, to make sure you aren't seen as The Boy Who Cried Wolf, or seen as someone who likes to stir the shit pot. You might not like hearing this, but I'm telling you for your own good: The people that are most successful in obtaining consensus here are the people that can work with others in a non-confrontational and civil way. It isn't instantaneous, but over the long haul, it is proven to be true. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

This doesn't particularly deal with the issue I brought up. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Nothing ever deals with the issue you bring up. No solution will ever be acceptable to you until any editor who has ever disagreed with you is blocked. If you continue in this manner, you'll be blocked yourself. Ryan Vesey 20:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you done?

The issue I brought up was Guy Macon. As far as I can tell, Dennis didn't say anything directly about it. I'm sure I'm not blind, so your attack is way over the line. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 21:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I told you that Tide Rolls appears to be dealing with the issue you raised, first two sentences. The rest of it was just free and very sincere advice. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the advice, but as far as I can tell, Tide Rolls isn't doing anything at all. I wouldn't have bothered you if I thought he had any intention of acting. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 21:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I actually did address them. He didn't out you. You both leave something to be desired when it comes to civility. You both are interested in the same subject matter but are on different sides of the issue, so you will bump heads sometimes. That he and others agree isn't a cabal. If someone is trying to get you "in trouble", the best solution is to not give anyone a reason to think you are in the wrong, by taking the high road. I thought I deferred, then addressed the primary issues above. Again, it isn't likely what you wanted to hear, but it is the truth.

If your attempts at justice have failed, it might be because there is no justice here, we just try to keep the playing field level. You have a different idea about how Misplaced Pages works than the reality of it is. Admins aren't school principals, you have to learn to get along with others on your own. If there is a serious breach of policy, Tide Rolls would have taken action. I didn't see or I would have as well. I see two sides of an issue being dickish to each other. You set yourself up to get your feelings hurt and you need to develop thicker skin and a different way of communicating. Had you been the pinnacle of civility here, it would have allowed me to apply some pressure on Belchfire and Guy Mason, but you are all equally rude to each other, so you have guaranteed I can't really say anything. I covered this all above, just more gently. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Gentleness is wasted upon me; bluntness works better. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

@StillStanding, We crossed paths a couple of times when you were editing as an IP, and since then I've kind of kept an eye on you because you often make me laugh with your clever and sometimes snarky sense of humor. As far as I can tell I haven't had the occasion to take your side or to oppose you at any article yet, but I've seen a lot of the drama you've been immersed in recently, albeit from afar. The reason I'm butting into this conversation is because what Dennis said above is very good advice, in my opinion, and I want to encourage you to re-read it, and then try to follow it. Misplaced Pages is a community and for it to work properly people need to learn how to disagree without being disagreeable. Ok, I'm going to stop throwing around cheesy slogans and mind my own business now, but I thought I'd throw in my two cents. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your input. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to go a bit further. Still, you are only making yourself look ridiculous when you essentially, tell well respected admins that "they got it wrong". Dennis is not the first admin you have disagreed with. While they aren't perfect, they usually get it correct and if they don't the issue usually gets corrected. Furthermore you are only impressing yourself with your ability to look up policy and the lecture others on the proper use of said policy. If that is not bad enough, you make it far worse when you act on enforcing your interpretation of policy. If you continue on this path, you will most certainly be facing blocks and community sanctions. If you are serious about building an encyclopedia instead of pushing POV, then I suggest you seek a mentor who can act as a sounding board and show you how to navigate the turbulent waters of political articles more smoothly.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, how did mentoring work for you on your previous accounts? How long did your blocks get before you closed them down and started fresh? StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Like any self-change, success is relative to the desire and willingness of the person being mentored. I've undergone mentoring once, it went swimmingly. I've mentored someone else, the results were a bit mixed. Mentoring only works if the mentored understand and accept their shortcomings and have a genuine desire to address them. This is no different than in the real world: people who think there is nothing wrong with the way they are, don't change. Those that can see and accept their flaws, take ownership of them and can change them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you just repeated the punchline to "How many psychiatrists does it take to change a light bulb?" StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps :) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I'm going to read them over and see what specific changes I can make in my behavior. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Good luck with that! ```Buster Seven Talk 03:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Possible vandalism; or disruptive editing?

Hello, Dennis

I believe I need your assistance regarding a situation which I don't know whether I should report to WP:ANI/WP:AIV or not. Miros 0571 (talk · contribs) is systematically removing images from Windows 8 article. (Please see , , and .) In addition, he has added a {{di-orphaned fair use}} to File:Windows 8 start screen.png which is being used on five different articles.

I can neither assume good faith nor bad faith in him; but his edits are definitely wrong. Unfortunately, I cannot contact him because this incident involving him means that he is probably inclined to treat me with utmost hostility.

Any suggestions as to how to handle this situation would be highly appreciated.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 19:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• Like all content disputes, and under WP:BRD, he changed, you reverted, now you need to start a discussion on the article talk page. ie: "I reverted the images because of $x, please discuss before reverting back", and allow others editing to pipe in as well. You always start on the article talk page, then WP:DRN if you haven't been able to hash it out or they refuse to participate on the talk page. The key is starting at the lowest possible level. And of course, listen to his rationale. I have left them a note on their talk page asking them to not remove images that way, and telling them they need to discuss it on the article talk page. That should be enough to get them started, if not or you get any heat over it, ping me again. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • • I'm assuming he gets the point, based on the summary in this . Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Conscientious Objection

Hello Dennis Brown,

Is it possible that I want to be forbidden from Misplaced Pages, forever, as a regard of my conscientious objection to be here anymore?

If it's possible, what should I do?

Thanks.

Barayev (talk) 03:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'm a little confused. You can request to be blocked, although the number of admins willing to do self requested blocks is limited. You say you have "conscientious objections" to being here, a phrase I'm familiar with but usually in the context of military service. Misplaced Pages isn't mandatory like the military is once you sign on the dotted line, you can always simply not come here. Is there some objection or issue that you want to share? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I know it's used as a term for military objection. Anyway, I used it allegorically. Thanks. ;) Barayev (talk) 03:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I constantly see the phrase "we're all volunteers here" used as an explanation to new editors of why some requested change cannot be done (or at least, done quickly) on Misplaced Pages. I can never resist pointing out that introducing conscription may not be a welcome solution to that issue.

I'm also in agreement with Dennis that there are not currently any editors who are forced to edit. University level education is optional in all countries I'm aware of. Although secondary education is legally compulsory in many countries, I believe all of the editing projects at that level have been optional (what the Americans call "elective"). However, it's always possible that in the future, such secondary school editing projects will become more widespread, some will not be optional, and therefore we will have a subset of editors who are editing because they don't have a choice about it.

I do very commonly see editors forced to make edits because their employers tell them to, indeed sometimes these editors are less than happy about it. But of course they do in theory have the option of quitting their job. Perhaps some of those employed by the military are the exceptions to that. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Could a self-block be requested by an IP address? Such as those from corporations having problems with employees making incriminating COI edits? User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 02:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

It is doubtful that it would be fulfilled. I wouldn't. They could easily blacklist wikipedia by adding a dns or hosts entry pointing en.wikipedia.org to 127.0.0.1. Literally one line in the server's /etc/reseolv.conf file. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Emailed her, after I kicked myself for not thinking about her. Dougweller (talk) 12:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• Not a prob, this is what is good about the project, many minds working on a common goal. Normally, those areas of WP are too far away for me to touch with my 10 foot pole, although we all need to work towards learning enough to "police" it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Boy

Your addition to Boy is precious again, awesome Wikipedian of 15 May ;) Left by User:Gerda Arendt

That is an exceptionally good image of a newborn, and certainly worthy of being the lede photo for that article. That it is also a "birth day" present is just a bonus. :)

Now Drmies can say "That's my boy." Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Personal attack?

Hi, Dennis. I have a quick question. Unless I'm mistaken, I have removed what appears to be a personal attack by MegaCyanide666 (talk · contribs) and warned him to stay back and follow WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, as well as WP:BATTLEGROUND. Is this acceptable? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• Seems like a perfectly reasonable response, and you even hand wrote it rather than use a template, so I would say that is a very proper response. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
• I've looked closer, and this seems to be a pattern. I've blocked him for 48 hours. That was simply way too far over the line. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I've revdel'ed his comments as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
  • You're welcome. Best wishes, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, the personal attack has been seemingly restored with the edit summary "If I wanted anything removed I would do it myself lol". I am concerned that it might be inappropriate to restore the attack per WP:TPO. Can you please do something about this? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I had revdel'ed the worst of it, the really strong stuff. If he wants to keep the non-revdel'ed parts on his page, so be it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Got it. I was a little concerned about this, since personal attacks towards anyone are not tolerated. Thanks for your time looking into this matter. :) Best wishes, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
        • They shouldn't be, which is why I revdel'ed the worst of it and blocked the user. But if he wants the more minor comment on his page, that is fine as well. Sometimes I will leave an insult on my talk page as well. It doesn't reflect poorly on me, only on the the one that left it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Rock on

You rock!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111111111111 Egg Centric 23:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: User talk:Arkon

Arkon (talk) 02:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19

Hi. When you recently edited Zingbot 3000, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Comic Con (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 03:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Hello!

 RexRowan  Talk  14:50, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

For independently restoring Penyulap's Talk. A hot, fresh, 1/2 lb. California deluxe bacon-chessburger. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Here again!

Talkback

The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• I've reopened the case, gave an opinion and left open for the CU to review. I've also pinged them on IRC. Interesting, but I'm not convinced it is connected, but since the CU was already run with sleeper check, another review can't hurt, if WilliamH will. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • It appears I was wrong, being handled as we speak. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

3RR help requested

Many seem to be incorrect about 3RR and perhaps it is merely because of the wording, but am I correct that it is not a violation to make 20 (just an example, probably more like ten or less) reverts in a 24 hr period on different pages even when it is not reverting vandalism, just unconstructive good faith edits. I need clarification before I extend an apology to an editor I may have assumed violated the rule incorrectly.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind Dennis. Another editor has confirmed this and I believe it is correct. 3RR is not I remember it in the old days. It seems to have broader implications and the brightline rule seems something added from the last couple of years. I guess I really haven't had enough interaction with 3RR to know the current guideline. At any rate the editor has point blank stated he does not want an apology. Oliver Twisted made a deletion on the Paul Ryan article and made a thread saying anyone who wanted could revert it but he thought it was trivia. We seemed to clash over a disagreement on RS/N and he left a couple of post that made me feel he had begun to give me some percieved payback for the discussion on the Huffington Post as a reliable source. He left a message on my talkpage and I told him it didn't help the situation and that perhaps we should stick to our own corners for a while and stay on the articles, notice boards and talkpages of the articles. he took a break, I took a small break and we both continued editing Paul Ryan when he made the deletion and the discussion. I posted my objections and my reasoning, first expecting that he would understand the policies, but he wanted them linked and explained so I did and then adapted the information back in, which could easily still be a revert as it was the same info and ref but I didn't want to make a blatant revert but edit the information back in in relation to the mention of similar info. Eve though he said anyone could revert, i guess that excluded me and he became very difficult and just reverted it back. That is when I decided to check his contributions and made the mistake of saying he had violated the 3RR as I had just seen another editor be told this on the Mitt Romney talkpage. I even approched that editor and discussed ways to understand editing practices,consensus etc.. Not everyone is going to get along and my mistake didn't help. As for the content dispute, that can sort itself out. No one really seems to care except to mention they don't see reason to remove it, but not inclined to add it back. So there is some silent consent even if I think it was edit warring to put it back.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

This is one reason I don't jump on blocking on the 4th revert. I know some admins see the 4th revert as a "bright line to block", due to the unfortunate wording of the relevant policies. To me, that just means it is authorized without any further rationale, but is seldom optimal to do so. Most of the time, 3RR can be solved with conversation, as you've found out. Blocking blindly just leads to winners and losers and hard feelings. There are times when 4RR is a good time to block, when an editor has shown a POV and unwillingness to do any discussing, but that doesn't apply most of the time. It is always better if editors work it out themselves. Of course, this happened around 3am my time (east coast USA) so I was sleeping and not able to help, sorry. BTW, hope your event went well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It did seem to work itself out with help of someone else awake at the time. Yes, the event was a lot of fun...but turned out to be the hottest day all year and it was at a glass blowing studio with 4 sepaerate open furnaces. LOL!--Amadscientist (talk) 21:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Protection

Thanks for protecting my talk page last night. It seemed like those socks didn't let up. -- Luke (Talk) 17:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• No prob. Someone else had protected Egg's page, and since both of you guy's pages were the targets, I was hoping that would force them to find something else to do. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

sockpuppet case on User:Carliniphoto

Just to let you know he came to me about this. You should probably read what I told him at my talk page, as I referred him back to you. Thanks! Gtwfan52 (talk) 20:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Sounds perfectly fine. I tried to tell him as much on his talk page, but I understand that since I'm the one that blocked him, he isn't likely to be as receptive. I would be happy to help him, but he has to realize he is no different than some 15 year old living in Wichita, Kansas or a 70 year old living in Tokyo, as far as fairness and expectations of policy go. We are all equals here. That might take a little bit of explaining. Artists (be they musicians or painters or photographers) sometimes have trouble understanding that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Pound4Pound

Hello, I am user Pound4Pound and I would like to discuss with you about the discussion made before about blocking me due to a link between my account and a entirely different user called BigzMMA. Now I would like to start by breaking down some about how me and him cannot possible be related using some of the points made on the Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/BigzMMA/Archive#10 August 2012 page.

User TreyGeek started off by saying that our editing time were virtually identical, yet our IP addresses are only just similar, not the same. Now lets us make the assumption for one moment that I am also BigzMMA with a different account called Pound4Pound through a different IP address, if I was to be functioning at the same times as I have been with my previous account but off a different IP address, then I must be using a different computer in a different area to the IP range. Now if the local times are checked from where you are to the UK times, I would be editing on Misplaced Pages from all times in the day, every day from a different computer, but where could I be at all day around those times, because lets say that BigzMMA was run from a IP address which is my house computer, then who's IP address am I functioning from for Pound4Pound every day as well? I could not be using a friends computer at their house, nor could it be a work/school computer as wouldn't it of been mentioned that it was a shared network? And because I use it exactly at the same time of the day, every day as BigzMMA did, how would it be possible? The user BigzMMA, from what I seen, had a sock-puppet called MMADon101, and he had the same IP address as he used for BigzMMA yet I do not. Ultimately if we are the same person, how can I be working off the one computer from, as I can see from some of BigzMMA's earliest edits via his talk page history, September last year till April this year, and then I created my account over a month after he stopped editing off a different computer and edited on Misplaced Pages during the same times as he did. So this must help show that it is impossible for us to be the same person.

User Jakejr pointed out that we both have different editing styles. From how he described BigzMMA as well as having a look at some of the AfDs he took part in, he seemed aggressive towards other editors in term that he seemed like he didn't actually care about making a real case, but just bombarded other edited with abuse and abusiveness like wording, whereas in the only two AfDs I took part in, I have simply tried to get the best cases from both the side I believed to be the right choice and the opposing. If you take the time to check Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Iain Martell (2nd nomination), you can see that all I was trying to do was get the best out of the votes that were calling for delete. You can see that the arguments calling for delete were not constructive nor in the case of User Zujua was taken seriously enough to be possibly count for a vote. When the result of that AfD was delete, I messaged the closing admin, User Mark Arsten, pointing the issues in the deletion votes and after some though he agreed that he should of relisted it, not deleted. In the third AfD for the page, I did say that I was much happier with the overall votes being made for deletion, but ofcourse I was entitled to say why I still felt that the page was notable enough to keep. I even said that I would have a copy of the page on my sandbox if (which we know now resulted as was a delete) so that I could keep it updated through that so if there came a time that Iain did something that would propel him straight to being notable without debate, such as going to the UFC or hosting a weekly TV show on ITV or BBC, then I can add all those sources and information to my copy of the page so it saves retyping all the information/sources that was already on there without going through hours and hours research like I had to do to get the page as good as it was before it was deleted, as well as my copy on my sandbox. So, to break this down simply enough, Our editing styles have made any connection hard to make simply because BigzMMA had a blunt style whereas I was more open to reason and offered it much more.

I will leave this as it is for now, I am aware that by contacting you through only my IP address is a violation, but I feel like I was never given the chance to speak my side during the debate, it was too short and too quick for me to comment to by the time I was able to use my computer again. However, you have my word that I will not edit on any page other than yours until we can get this thing sorted out, I was really shocked and upset to see I was blocked a few days ago and am looking forward to the day when this is cleared up. Thank you for your time Dennis, I will be looking forward to seeing you reply. 86.130.241.52 (talk) 21:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Editing through your IP is a violation, block evasion, but I'm not going to block you just yet and would ask other admins to not do so just yet (even though they will not appreciate my request, as it is within their right to block on sight.) I will fully review the situation later this evening when I have time, and I promise I will do so fairly. As to IPs, that is meaningless to be truthful. Before a check was done, I already knew that you and Biggz are from the same area, which is known to be the worst to determine geolocation from. There was no WP:Checkuser, no IPs compared for me to make the determination, so I have no idea if your IP and the IP Biggz used match or not. It was based on behavior, and you and he having 36 articles edited in common, which is an extraordinary amount for someone so new. But again, I will review later. If I think I need an outside party to review, I will do that as well. And again, to prevent being blocked, do not edit as the IP at all, and then you will have to reply on your talk page, while logged into the P4P account. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• I've asked a very experienced SPI clerk to review the entire case. He is not an admin, but he has more experience than I do, and I will comply with whatever result he comes up with. If he can't determine, I will ask another editor to review. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• Hello, I have reviewed the situation carefully and will provide my thoughts on the situation. While I definitely do see the overlap in articles and some similarities, I do see a differentiation in style of editing, and the subject area is quite popular - so the overlap may be a coincidence. Being a rather conservative person, my assessment of the situation is that it's possible these two users are different. I would unblock and monitor carefully - however I don't think the block was a bad one - this is a borderline case and it could have gone either way - the block was reasonable given the situation - I'd just have handled it somewhat different. Hope this helps Dennis. Regards, Steven Zhang 23:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • • As I promised I would defer to Steven's judgement, I've unblocked, left a comment on the talk page and will monitor. Again, sorry for the bumpy road. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

A question

Would it be frowned upon if I was to mention Bagumba's RfA at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Baseball due to his involvement with that project? AutomaticStrikeout 23:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Probably. If it was an issue at the Pump that affected baseball, then it would be fine, but I would imagine that many people would consider announcing RfA there as canvassing. Most people have a lower threshold for calling something canvassing than they should, but that is the reality we have to live with. I haven't decided on him yet, although having Ched's support is pretty strong in my book. I'm interested in seeing how he answers my question, which some might think is "softball" (pun intended) but it isn't, and is actually an opportunity to see how he answers a free style question and see inside his head a bit, which will either work for him or against him. I'm unpredictable that way :) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

  I see. Thanks for the answer. Personally, I think Tony Romo is a much better choice than either of the other two ! AutomaticStrikeout 23:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

  You better hope he doesn't think so! ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

  Nope. He really went outside the box! AutomaticStrikeout 00:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

  Well, I did some research on him while he was answering, and rendered my vote. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

  Good, I'm glad his answer didn't cause you to "punt" away your vote. AutomaticStrikeout 00:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

  Facepalm Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Advice Requested from John D. Rockerduck

I'm relatively a newbie and I got into a heated exchange with two editors that started asking me personal questions about my religion and attacking it in my opinion. The disscussion was originally intended to be about the RfC they wanted to start about a wikiproject in debating a reason for the FrC I used the Pope as an analogy then instead of a discussion related to an RfC it became a forum for attacking the Catholic church and asking me about my faith. I made clear I found this offensive and intolerant of me being a proud Catholic but they kept the forum going asking me personal questions of like "John, as a Christian, do you believe it is more important to follow the teachings of Jesus or the teachings of your Church?" I repeatedly asked them to stop but they did not, now I'm thinking of going and reporting this to the wikiettique forum, but being new and never using this forum before (and not wanting to look like a fool with a off claim) I'm wondering if you (an unbias administrator) could give me an opinion of whether that is a reasonable course of action, or if I'm wrong about my grasp of the rules of wikiettiqute, also if I'm just to mad to see clearly; and if I'm being to sensitive (entirely a possiblety) here is a link the disscussion Thank you for time and sorry to bother you John D. Rockerduck (talk) 01:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I would just walk away from that conversation. It can serve no purpose to participate there on his talk page. I guess I could be in the middle, spending 20 years a Catholic and the last 30 a non-Christian Deist and it is easy to see that Stillstanding has a great deal of misconceptions about the Catholic Church. Such as being anti-gay, although it condemns the act, it doesn't the actor. The Catholic church was one of the first racially integrated as well. And as for contraception, Onan covers part of the reason for the church's stance, which isn't anti-woman. Ironically, it could be seen as anti-man, if anything, since the ban is about casting seed on the ground, including masturbation. And to be honest, I completely disagree with the Catholic Church on just about every single issue I can think of, but I'm not ignorant of it and respect those that are still practicing Catholics, and respect the (perhaps majority) buffet Catholics that pick and choose which parts they agree with and which parts they don't (As a Catholic, you know exactly what I'm talking about). We should respect even when we disagree. Most people don't understand Catholicism due to simple ignorance, which is often the source of these obviously non-neutral comments that they truly believe are neutral. As long as this doesn't work its way into articles, I wouldn't worry. Misplaced Pages is a global village, and only 1 in 6 people are even Christian, many less are Catholic. Everyone is a minority here.

Ping me here if it goes to RFC, I would be interested in looking at that closely. Looking briefly at the Wikiproject Conservatism main page, I don't see anything problematic myself, although I would have to dig deeper. Stillstanding is also a new user, and I think he might be assuming you can delete a project if you get enough people to say "delete it", but that isn't how Misplaced Pages works. As an Wikipedian, I'm empowered by WP:IAR, which is a pillar and a policy, arguably the most important policy we have. It means majority doesn't rule, common sense does, and I can't see how the idea of removing the project will ever take hold. Even taking it to RfC is risky for him, as it might be seen as being pointy.

There are a lot of articles relating to Conservatism, enough to justify a project, even if the focus has drifted temporarily from Classical Conservatism. So in other words, I wouldn't let the opinions of a couple of people worry me. People who get into philosophical wars don't fare well here, so it is better to express an opinion at the RfC, if there is one, and let others just have their opinions. If they make a war of it, the system is pretty good at taking care of it, although you have to be a little patient. You aren't going to change their opinions any more than they are going to change yours. Trying to is a waste of time and only causes drama. You are better off dismissing the opinions and just working on some articles instead. If it goes to RfC, give a calm rational opinion there, and of course ping me here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice you put alot of thought into, when I randomly selected you from a list of adminstrators I made the right call. I suppose your right and I should let it go as long as they don't continue it on my talkpage, or other articles talkpages that I'm editing. And if it goes to an RfC consider yourself pinged already Thanks for everything you really calmed me down John D. Rockerduck (talk) 02:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to tactfully avoid commenting about Catholicism, but I do want to mention that it's not the goal of the RFC to destroy that project, only to bring it back in line with policy. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Dennis, the Christian/Catholic interpretation of Onan as supporting a precept against contraception is disputed by Jewish scholars. Jütte notes that Christian teachings on contraception have little to do with Onan in the OT and more to do with the rejection of the OT and a selected interpretation of the NT. However, Christian ethicist Joseph Fletcher said it best: "Jesus said nothing about birth control, large or small families, childlessness, homosexuality, masturbation, fornication, pre-marital intercourse, sterilization, artificial insemination, abortion, sex foreplay, petting and courtship. Whether any form of sex (hetero, homo or auto) is good or evil depends on whether love is fully served." He who has ears to hear, let him hear. Viriditas (talk) 05:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Respect is what counts most here. We are always going to have differences of opinion, but as long as we handle those differences like adults with honest dialog that stays away from personal comments, it all works out. Again, it just takes a little patience sometimes. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	This is for defusing me and saving me alot of drama, since I most certainly get worked up, sorry I got you pulled into to that forum there are relentless John D. Rockerduck (talk) 05:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for the kindness. I've stored a copy in my Ronco Barnstar Vault for safe keeping. Often times, it is just helpful to talk to someone that understands your point of view, even if they no longer have the same beliefs. It isn't required we agree in order for us to understand each other, after all. Even with the best intentions, sometimes conversations just get heated up and the best thing to do is step away and let the benefit of time give us perspective. If there is an RfC, hopefully it will be calm, stay on topic and work towards a positive goal. I find processes that have positive goals are more likely to succeed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

WQA rfc

Hi Dennis - in regards to your comment at the village pump - we're not redirecting WQA to ANI - just marking it historical, and making a few other changes which I detailed in the thread to reduce the overflow to ANI (though WQA only saw 17 threads in May fwiw). Thanks again, Steven Zhang 15:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• I got that, but it would be dumped on ANI. WQA might need some tweaks, but throwing it out is an error. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• I personally don't think thats likely - we're working on WP:SANITY which would take the reduced load (as the historical note on WQA will direct to self-help we're working on, with the sanity check (working name) as an option if self-help is unsuccessful. Steven Zhang 15:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Build a better mousetrap first, then I will be glad to throw away to old one :) Or better yet, just fix WQA, which is linked everywhere and already has mindshare. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'm working on it :-) (No, really, I am - it's 1.34am here :) ) Steven Zhang 15:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• btw, I sent you an email. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Zimmermanh1997/98.204.146.142

Hey Dennis, perhaps you can help with a problem editor. User:Zimmermanh1997 (using User:98.204.146.142) is causing problems by repeated making edits like this to numerous pages over and over. Other editors have given the user tips on how to avoid linking to off-Wiki images with no response from the user, I have even uploaded a couple to two of the pages, but the user continues to remove them and link to the off-Wiki images. I have begun giving out vandalism warnings as I feel this has ventured into vandalism territory. On the named account, he is up to Warn 2, IP is up to Warn 3. Perhaps you could have a word with the user before this gets into Warn 4 territory. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• I've left him a personalized message and pointed to it on the IP's page. I removed the sock notice because I don't think that is his intent. Hopefully that will get his attention. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Okie Dokie, hopefully he gets the message. Though I have a feeling we are dealing with a bored kid before school, as school in this area started this week. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
    • The edits look like ignorance, not malice. If they continue, ping me and I will block him. Even innocent disruption is still disruption. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Okie Dokie, will do. :) Thanks! - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Check the recent edits to WAYZ, more vandalism, same editor, same IP. :( - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• I've done a short block and a note to go to the teahouse. I hate doing these kinds of blocks, but that is disruptive. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Hate to throw another one on the pile, but could you block this editor. It is unrelated, but vandalizing several pages. Full set of warnings given. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Nevermind, Toddst1 got that one. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Amrit914

Hello Dennis, I'm reviewing Amrit914 who I saw you blocked for 2 weeks for sockpuppetry. I agree with your blocking decision but the editor has made an appeal that's convincing to me and I'd like to unblock them early to give them a chance to make good on their promises. I wanted to run this by you first as the blocking administrator. I looked into their activity and I think it's plausible that their misbehavior was due to an ignorance of our policies and not due to malice. Thank you. -- Atama頭 18:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• As always, I will defer to your judgement since you are on the scene and working with the editor, thus more capable of determining the wisdom in unblocking them. Often, this is exactly the case, so I appreciate you spending the time to educate the editor and hopefully get them on the right track to being a good contributor. I also appreciate the note here, by the way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• My pleasure! I'll unblock them and keep an eye on the situation to see if they re-offend or start trouble elsewhere, I'll also watchlist the article that got them in trouble. -- Atama頭 20:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

TPS ers

165 for you. I had 99 this am and now 101, hmm... PumpkinSky talk 22:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• The bad side of having a 6.1 centijimbo rating is that if I screw up, word gets a round quickly. Guess I better try to not screw up, huh? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Or, become less popular! You seem to be a popular guy.PumpkinSky talk 22:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not terribly entertaining, so not sure why. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Great question, see User_talk:The_Blade_of_the_Northern_Lights#That_RFA PumpkinSky talk 22:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Ahem. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

But most of those are admins, keeping an eye on you... :D Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

More than likely. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow NH! Yea, prob a bunch of admins ;-) PumpkinSky talk 22:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Admins and editors I have pissed off. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

One more than me. LadyofShalott 22:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

But you are nice and sweet. I'm mean and grumpy. I'm sure at least 40 or 50 of mine are editors plotting some kind of ArbCom revenge. ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Hah! :) Have you looked at Drmies's number? LadyofShalott 23:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

351, but half of those are his sockpuppets ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Old Template

Hi, I work on another wiki outside of wikipedia and I was curious if you could help me get the source code for a long deleted page. I really would like it as I saw it on wikipedia long ago but its somehow out of use and got deleted its Template:Spoiler which was last used in 2008. I think its the one I've been looking for. Numpty9991 (talk) 00:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure the whole history was actually moved to Misplaced Pages talk:Spoiler/old template, but it doesn't seem very fancy to me. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

YGM

TheSpecialUser  02:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

re:

the RfA where various sports are mentioned. Have you seen this one: Chess boxing? — Ched :  ?  18:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• Not only have I seen it, I've linked it to various talk pages when appropriate and it is on my watchlist. I've done a couple of minor edits to it as well. I would love to see a match! Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm ... may have been you who brought it to my attention then. I was thinking it was 28bytes .. but I'm not positive on that - my memory isn't what it used to be. Anyway .. carry on. Cheers buddy. — Ched :  ?  19:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

A few requests

Hi Dennis.

First things first. I know you're a clerk at SPI, and I also know you currently have a trainee, but once you're all done with Tiptoety I was wondering if you'd consider taking me on? I added my name to the list a while ago, but thought I'd approach you directly as I know you've got your head screwed on tight. SPI is often backlogged these days and I'd like to help out.

And secondly...I'd like to request an RfA nomination. I realise there are loads of obstacles to me passing an RfA, the most significant of which would be my lack of content creation. I'm not a content creator, but I think there are other important areas in which I can help. I'm always dismayed when I glance at the backlogs, with so few active admins to do the water carrying. I'm a sensible pair of hands and I can help. I have other qualities which I think would make me a productive admin - I think I communicate well, stay civil in debate and act cautiously when using potentially damaging tools, especially when they are new to me.

I've thought a lot about this, and have always held off from running in the past because of my own perceived weaknesses, but I've reached the point where I feel I may as well just give it a go and see what the community has to say. Despite my relative inexperience I feel I'm ready to use the tools effectively, even though I don't have the history to demonstrate it beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Anyway, I realise that you're likely to come to the conclusion that I'm not ready, and if so I'd welcome your feedback. If, however, you feel it's worth a shot, I'm ready to run the gauntlet. Regards Basalisk ⁄_berate 19:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• It will take me a bit to do a full check, likely a week or two as I'm backed up with one that I haven't even started on, but I will be happy to if you can be patient. As to SPI, it will likely be a long time before I am no longer considered a "trainee", as I don't devote all my time there, thus it will take many months. Right now, there are a lot of backlogs, but most things are getting done eventually. One case, Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Morning277 has occupied a great deal of time due to the complexity that isn't even noted on that page. I've had a few lately that required many days to sort out. Most cases don't, so instead of me working 4 to 8 in a day, I'm working maybe 2. It is part of the cycle. Next week it might be all simple cases. So I can't promise anything on SPI, but I will look into RfA. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. There's no rush. Basalisk ⁄_berate 22:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

False Sock Charge

You accused me of using a sock puppet and the charge is false. MART2012 is a unique person with her own ideas. Please remove the tag from my User page. Thank you. University Internet Cafe Booth 6 (talk) 22:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• I didn't accuse you, Dave Dial did. Then the CU, DeltaQuad ran a Checkuser and proved the two accounts used the exact same IP and user agent, etc., showing it was exactly the same person. I just came in and cleaned up afterwards by doing the block. Your views being similar wouldn't make your technical signatures be identical. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Chewy

Hi, could you please help me on a trivial issue? I am trying to rename this page: Mr. Chewy. However, when I view the page, the title shows up incorrectly as "mr. Chewy". Note incorrect lower-case "m". How do we make that an upper case? Thanks. Logical Cowboy (talk) 22:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

•  Done I've fixed the title, there was a {{lowercase title}} in there, see diffs. That said, the sourcing for that is problematic and I'm not sure if that meets GNG. Not surprising, since it is a new company, but what I saw was incidental mentions and weak sourcing. Only the two WSJ articles were WP:RS, and they weren't significant coverage. I would make sourcing a top priority before someone sends it to AFD. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Duh, sorry to ask for help on something so easy! I did not know about that tag. Thanks again. Logical Cowboy (talk) 23:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem, that's what I'm here for :) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:48, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Morning277 SPI

Hi! Just as a quick comment, I opened up an SPI for Jetijonez at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Yattum - I think the there is enough behavioural evidence to draw a connection there, but I suspect a checkuser would be stale. I don't think that there will be a CU connection with Morning277, as my assumption was that the crossovers were due to subcontracting and because both editors appear to have, on at least one occasion, been employed to work on the same articles at different times and appear to maintain separate profiles, but if there is a CU connection then the Yattum angle might get interesting. - Bilby (talk) 23:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'm going to try to work on this tomorrow, I had added it, but then asked CU to hold off since I didn't have enough ready evidence to justify the check, and I've been working my tail off all day, and just flat exhausted, too much to concentrate properly for this kind of case. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

No hassles. :) I don't think CU will turn up anything, but either way the Yattum angle should be worth considering. - Bilby (talk) 23:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't have access to CU, although I've spent the last 15 years pouring through Apache logs and have a pretty idea what they are looking at. In these cases, the situation isn't the typical match, due to the coordination and use of proxies, so many of these matches were on singular points, and more so, on detailed behavioral matching, which is something I am pretty familiar with. I'm hoping I can do a detailed analysis tomorrow. I'm actually developing some new methods (for me, at least) for doing behavior comparisons, but they are exceedingly time consuming. Of course, what I rely on most is good editors who point them out to me, so I only have to match up a couple at a time. I appreciate the efforts. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Youve got mail

It seemed like a pretty poor use of a great resource to me. Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

RfC

Dear Editor, heated discussion on the renaming of this article. Maybe the article is not very interesting in itself for you but there is quite an example of a debate on the principle of naming conventions on its talk page. Everybody most welcome. Greetings. --E4024 (talk) 12:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

It is one I just opened and you may want to look at. To me, its pretty clear the two accounts are the same user. Snowsnowbing did a large number of incorrect Ryder Cup edits in 2011 and MrARJ76 has made some of the exact same changes....William 17:25, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Look what I found

In your spare time (if you have any) please checkout User:WikHead#Intersted to nominate your name as Admin. He is a 100K editor with the largest Plum colored edits pie. Some one has challenged him to consider Adminship and he wonders if he has the "muscle" for the job. I opined that nowadays the heart is the prime organ of strength. Thanks.```Buster Seven Talk 20:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Typically, this is not the kind of user you want as an admin. I bet you weren't expecting to hear that. The reason is simple: This is a highly productive content maintenance editor. Becoming an admin would reduce productivity. He has never shown an interest in the politics and processes here, thus no Wikispace experience (which is problematic for RfA, to say the least). One highly productive editor is worth 10 admins in my book. People come here for the great articles, not the great admins, and losing most of his productivity so he can move article, settle disputes, determine consensus, might be a waste of his skills.

His stats, the less than 2 edits per article, tells me he does a lot of tagging and maintenance stuff as well and like to clean up articles, which is great and we need that even more than admins, but makes it hard at RfA, particularly since it looks like most of his edits are automated. Great for productivity, not for RfA. If he becomes interested in admin work, he would normally start working some at the boards and learn the processes, methods, and the policies he might never have run across before. So if he shows the interest, I will be happy to help him, but I'm betting he doesn't want the hassles, and being an admin is a lot of hassle. Rewarding, but a lot of hassle. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I feel like an NFL scout that was excited to have found the next Peyton Manning only to be told he more closely resembles Bill Wade. ```Buster Seven Talk 22:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

No, he seems like a very good editor, but it is just a different skill set needed for admin, editors that engage more. Like I said, good editors are more important than good admins anyway. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Biruitorul

Hi, please take a look: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Biruitorul/Archive

Biruitorul deserves ban for abusing accounts: http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Nagyszikszai 100% RedParty is also Biruitorul. Biruitorul uses to reply his other accounts. The case is intricate and many other users warned before.

You could also please check: http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Anonimu http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Bogdangiusca http://en.wikipedia.org/User:PANONIAN

http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/SidoniaBorcke With this user he replied himself: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Csangos&action=history (Full page of his users)

I could also add that Biruitorul found Dutch and German VPNs. 100% it`s him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.149.241.202 (talk) 23:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you two just learn to get along? You've been at each other for years. PumpkinSky talk 00:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I've already closed that previous case. If you want to open a new case, I will let another clerk review it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow, um, a whole lot being claimed there. FWIW, I don't think there's anything there. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

HarveyCarter, again

92.7.0.136 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is at it on Edward Furlong, one of his pet articles as you'll see from the article history - 92.7.5.190 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), CuthbertClifford (talk · contribs), 92.7.2.174 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 92.7.13.36 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) are all him, and that's only going back to the start of July. Do I need to waste time with SPI? Thanks. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 20:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

You're wrong. I am not HarveyCarter.