User talk:Bencmcclain

Great work
Thank you so much for all your work on the Sawant article, both the content and research. It's not a 100% the way I would have done it but it's not about me and your edits have been constructively moderating and well put together. Also, since nobody else has said it yet, welcome to Wikipedia! GraniteSand (talk) 17:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Accusations against you
Just so you are aware, {{User:Dennis Bratland|Dennis Bratland]] has accused you of faking multiple profiles and pretending to be me. You can respond to the accusation here. Or you can just let it go, this conspiracy theory will fall apart on him in pretty short order. {{User:GraniteSand|GraniteSand]] (talk) 22:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know! I just responded (in something of a rant), that was crazy. Thanks for being so nice! {{User:Bencmcclain|Bencmcclain]] (talk) 23:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * No problem. Etiquette suggests he should have but I wanted to make sure you knew. I read your reply on the talk page and it bummed me out. Please don't be too discouraged. Sometimes experienced editors bully newer ones, even if they don't realize that's what they are doing. It's not personal and you've made awesome contributions. You already have got your way more often than not and that's impressive. You are in no way at fault here, that's been demonstrated. I look forward to your continued edits. Oh, and if you don't like my recent move of the Marxist thing we can most certainly take that up again. Wikpedia never really stays put. GraniteSand (talk) 23:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * My apologies
 * Bencmcclain, I apologize for dragging you into a sockpuppet investigation, but I was right about GraniteSand: he has at least two other accounts, {{User|CarpetBumming}} and {{User|TreeMop}}. It's obvious that GraniteSand and the other two are the tip of the iceberg: behind these accounts is bound to be a major sockmaster who has been running any number of fake accounts, probably for many months or years, based on his behavior. He's clearly a highly sophisticated Wikipedian, not somebody who just started editing this October.Your interactions with him looked suspicious, and I felt that a formal SPI case would be the most fair way of clearing the air. Letting it hang around, with rumor and innuendo swirling, would leave you and GraniteSand with no chance of being exonerated. There are probably better ways I could have handled it, so I'm sorry for involving you.I know Wikipedia is appallingly complicated and bureaucratic, and the drama is absurd. But there's reasons for how it evolved that way, and nobody really knows how to fix it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You seem to be getting ahead of yourself again, sir. I hope, once this SPI is closed, I'll get a similar apology. In the mean time, no hard feelings. GraniteSand (talk) 21:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think your behavior is ludicrous and I think it's absurd that agreeing with someone just once is seen as a 'suspicious interaction,' but I accept your apology. Thanks for exposing me to Wikipedia drama early on. Bencmcclain (talk) 15:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)