User talk:MuZemike/Archive 6

A whole family of new editors called UWxxxx[edit]

Hi. I don't know what to make of this and wonder if you are interested in looking further into it. On the page Carbon tax, a whole series of new editors whose names all begin with 'UW' have arrived and are making significant changes. Most of these editors seem to have edited no other pages.

The following is an archived debate. Please do not modify it.
List of reported accounts: UWmgillett (talk · contribs) UWmdl3 (talk · contribs) UWnguyen6 (talk · contribs) UWandacker (talk · contribs) UWBLCKSTN (talk · contribs) UWdeerm (talk · contribs) Uwefy (talk · contribs) UWbckb08 (talk · contribs) UWksereng (talk · contribs) UWlec5 (talk · contribs) UWdurham2 (talk · contribs) UWdbascom (talk · contribs) UWalvaa (talk · contribs) UWarj8 (talk · contribs) Uwradkin (talk · contribs) UWvishnu (talk · contribs) UWmackenzie (talk · contribs) UWdbascom (talk · contribs) etc There are a few other new user accounts there too, whose names don't follow this convention. Kiferyang (talk · contribs) DuncanCharles (talk · contribs) Sk8mozam (talk · contribs) Strang22 (talk · contribs)

The following is an archived debate. Please do not modify it.

List of reported accounts:

There are a few other new user accounts there too, whose names don't follow this convention.

Best wishes. --Nigelj (talk) 09:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, the Carbon tax article is currently being edited as part of a college project (probably from the University of Wisconsin-Madison from looking at some of the usernames, w00t, w00t), as indicated here. I would AGF there unless some disruption starts going on which needs admin attention. –MuZemike 13:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Cool. Thanks. It just looked weird, but that makes good sense. --Nigelj (talk) 14:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3RR[edit]

Can you please look at my report on that user? Thanks, CTJF83 chat 22:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IP and registered user blocked 24h, article semi-protected 24h. It is clear that they were both being used in tandem to edit war over the article. –MuZemike 22:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Same edits again...if you can take another look at Brian Griffin CTJF83 chat 19:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IP blocked 72h, article semi-protected 2 weeks. –MuZemike 19:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm gonna have to keep you on my watchlist so I can bug you! :) CTJF83 chat 19:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question on Teach For Us[edit]

Hi MuZemike, I'm hoping to be able to talk about what happened with the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teach_For_Us . I was working with Cirt (talk) and improving the article during the past week. I guess someone that wasn't supposed to edit things moved it around. I don't know that person. Is there anything else that you think needs to be improved on the page before it is restored? I'm relatively novice at this and need some direction if you think something should change. Thanks. Ageller (talk) 01:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look like there is. If you're willing to continue work on the article, then I have no problem restoring it. If you weren't aware, it was moved by a banned user who violated his ban, which was why I deleted it. –MuZemike 01:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for moving it back. Not sure why that user decided to fiddle with our page in particular. Ageller (talk) 04:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything I need to be doing to initiate the move of the page? Just making sure you don't need more info from me. Ageller (talk) 13:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look like there is, as long as Cirt is OK with it. It seems like a pretty decent start IMO. –MuZemike 14:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cirt said ok and tossed it back to you for the restore. Sorry that this has been a hassle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cirt#Teach_For_Us_has_been_moved_into_mainspace_by_me. Ageller (talk) 21:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've went ahead and restored the article in the mainspace. –MuZemike 13:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet User:Andreas Balart is back[edit]

Hi there, I write you this because you were the admin who blocked and tagged all the suspected sockpuppets of User:Andreas Balart in the past.

Well, he/she is back as User:Dexxterious. He began contributing with this nick on August 2, 2010.

His/her contributions at Catalonia are pretty much the same (Removing the Coat of Arms from the article) that other confirmed sockpuppets like User:Peter Punkie([1]) , User:Chemitaxx ([2]) and of course, User:Andreas Balart([3])

Could you please block him/her?

Thanks, cheers. --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 10:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, talk page commenting style and edit summaries were too similar to write off. Blocked. –MuZemike 13:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WML request for deleted page: Mark M. Lowenthal[edit]

Hey MuZemike-- I was not fast enough to intercede in the deletion of my edits on the Mark M. Lowenthal page. It is true that I started with a "cut-and-paste" from a bio I found, but I made numerous edits on the page that are my own. Can I get the mark-up and I'll rollback the copyrighted material appropriately? You can just post it to my talk page or do whatever is easiest. Thanks. --Thedrake000 (talk) 17:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be able to email you a deleted copy of the page, but do not post it the material in its current state on any wiki-page. What I would do is start a draft of the article (without any copypasted material on it) at User:Thedrake000/Mark M. Lowenthal, and use what I email you to create an article that is not a copyright violation. Is that okay with you? –MuZemike 17:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can I file a SPI with out a Puppet master?[edit]

[4] this user pops up on the Genesis creation narrative talk page and brings up the Old Argument that over the Creation Myth stuff. I look over his user contributions and red flags are apparent. Highly familiar with policy and using edit summary in first edit (unusual but not unheard of). Restarting old battles here and here Creates a redirect here This smells Socky to me do you think there is enough here to warrant a SPI case? Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might need to research a bit more into it, it looks like. That is, look at others who may have been involved in said arguments. Otherwise, there is not much to go away, and we have to AGF for now. –MuZemike 18:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please,unblock Arnaiz1 and Virginal6[edit]

Please,go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tinpa/Archive#Comments_by_other_users

and read our pledge.Thank you.Dab thinks that leaving pending changes my be violation of living people biographies when vandalism, telling only not properly documented (serious accusations made up by newspapers) or part of history or not finishing what was starteg knowing that the stated in page is libellous and was declared false. I would ask you could provide some suggestions.Thank you This is the case of attack by Dumu Eduba on Antonio Arnaiz-Villena biography (started June 9th 2010)Symbio04 (talk) 22:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested review of the SPI case at the administrators' noticeboard. –MuZemike 22:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear MZ,I am like in a labyrynth.Where is this case in adm noticeboard ?Symbio04 (talk) 21:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Click the link over "administrators' noticeboard". –MuZemike 21:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

W8621 SPI[edit]

Thanks for acting on my SPI report yesterday. However, the IP's still a problem and the sockmaster has a habit of removing the ID tag, like I said in the report. I bet that after I restored the tag, socker would remove it within a couple of hours. That's how desperate he is at avoiding accountability. I recommend that the IP be blocked indefinitely if it can be done. Thanks. --Eaglestorm (talk) 06:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please give me a link to the SPI case in question? I did a whole bunch of them yesterday, and I can't find the one you're talking about. –MuZemike 13:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry about that. here it is BTW, he's made two unblock requests for the latest block, one of which is sort of a farewell-to-bullies-but-I-won't-let-the-door-hit-me-on-the-way-out letter that is better off as invoking a RTV. Since he is all about going off WP probably for good, it would be better if the IP itself was indefblocked, because for all you know, he's not editing as a registered user. And removing that ID sock tag and making references to the feud starting in December 2009 (when he was starting to edit as an anon) was just plain stupid. thanks--Eaglestorm (talk) 14:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Two things, unfortunately: first, we do not indefnitely block IP addresses; second, the IPs have not edited since Whitmore's block, in particular not on the Metal Gear Solid: Peace Walker article. There is no use in blocking the IPs at this time as they are dynamic and may be used by other people. Moreover, when Whitmore was blocked, his IPs recently used were likely autoblocked, meaning they cannot be used for a short while. There is not much else here to do with this case, I'm afraid. –MuZemike 14:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statipedia[edit]

I renew my previously expressed interest in finding out what you have in mind for the lightning talk at the NYC meetup on 28 Aug 2010. If you prefer not to comment on my talk page please comment here. If we don't prepare, we can still speak on the subject independently, but it would be wise to coordinate a bit, if only to lower my stress. Econterms (talk) 17:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I still need to read more into it, as I've been a little busy the past week or so. I owe you a response to that. –MuZemike 17:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, no worries. I understand "busy". It may be easier by phone or email. The proposal has my name all over the place. Feel free to email or call. You don't need to do homework in advance; it's not complicated for someone who knows wikipedia. I appreciate your interest and hope you can participate if we ever get the platform up. Econterms (talk) 21:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those IPs[edit]

See this. FYI. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NAVCO Business Security Systems page deletion[edit]

Hi MuZemike - My page was deleted and I'm not sure why. I am not affiliated with the company, and I modeled the page after ADT & Diebold since they offer a similar service. Can you please tell me what is different about my page that it has been taken down, and what I need to do to fix it? Thanks.Amiepeterson (talk) 03:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Padmini Ekadashi[edit]

yes, thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qualities108 (talk • contribs) 14:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of an RFA[edit]

I've undone your protection of WOSlinker's RFA, because RFAs are open to all users, even if they are brand new. It's therefore to the detriment of the RFA process to protect it, even if there was vandalism. Esteffect (talk) 19:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A short block (i.e. in the order of several hours) might have been more appropriate to stem immediate disruption from rotating IPs. –xeno^talk 19:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's fine. I won't throw up any roadblocks over it. I just don't see many non-autoconfirmed users commenting very often on RFAs, hence the protection length. –MuZemike 19:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Invincible (Michael Jackson album)[edit]

Hi MuZemike. As the GA reviewer, your opinion about my change to the headings of the article here would be appreciated. I think think the word "conception" is not a good representation of the actual content, and incorrectly implies that the section is about how the album was conceived. Another editor has requested some sort of consensus regarding the issues and your opinion would help to clarify things. Thanks, Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 14:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Vote comment[edit]

As you commented in the pending closure discussion I am notifying you that the Wikipedia:Pending changes/Vote comment is now open and will be for two weeks, discussion as required can continue on the talkpage. Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 01:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of help please[edit]

Once upon a time I asked that if User:YouAndMeBabyAintNothingButCamels were to protest the block that I hoped for very strong consideration: User_talk:MuZemike/Archive_20#User:YouAndMeBabyAintNothingButCamels. It seems the user has protested the block (rather vigorously). Given the extensive experience I've had in dealing with Karmaisking, I believe YouAndMe is innocent, but if for no other reason than WP:ROPE, I ask for an unblock for the editor. BigK HeX (talk) 05:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. That user's editing patterns (i.e. types of articles edited) as well as username match those of Karmaisking and related socks. Additionally, Karmsisking has socked incessantly before, and I'm sure he still is trying to do that. See his pleas on his previous SPI case as well as the fewer ones.

If you wish to further request review of my block, I welcome it at the administrators' noticeboard; at this point, I'm not convinced that I have erred in my block. Regards, –MuZemike 05:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not wish to initiate any ANI, but thanks for the consideration and further references. BigK HeX (talk) 19:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Schwyz SPI[edit]

Hey,

You recently evaluated an SPI I filed: [5]. May I ask you to clarify whether you believe the IP in question to be Schwyz or not? Also, I don't agree with your assessment that the socking is not abusive, since if Schwyz had not announced their retirement and had continued to edit logged-in instead of using the IP, the RfC/U [6], which itself was the consequence of multiple AN/I threads, would not have been abandoned, and that's where "avoiding scrutinity" of WP:SOCK comes in. Also, the comments the IP left in the RM Schwyz started are not in any way linked to Schwyz now and suggest an independent input where there is none ("Editing logged out in order to mislead" per WP:SOCK). That's why I want at least a clarification that the IP is Schwyz, I think sanctions are moot at this point because the IP is quiet now. Thank you Skäpperöd (talk) 09:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That last sentence is basically why I declined to take any administrative action, such as blocking. What would a block really accomplish here, besides look more or less abusive? –MuZemike 17:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I have not made myself clear, I am not asking for a sanction, but for a sentence like "It was him with a certainty of foo." Skäpperöd (talk) 18:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say with high certainty that Schwyz is using that IP. –MuZemike 18:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time. Skäpperöd (talk) 18:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

I like your war room, by the way.

The Transhumanist 23:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's why nobody fights in here. And yes, I even have the color right; the table in the War Room in the Dr. Strangelove film was supposed to be green (despite the fact the film was in black and white) so that it resembled a poker table that had everyone running the country playing (i.e. gambling with the U.S. and the rest of the world). –MuZemike 23:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of my favorite films. I haven't seen its serious counterpart yet though. Have you? The Transhumanist 23:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About 70.134.48.188[edit]

Can you please inform/infringe/block him(whatever suits better)? He is continuously adding fake and non constructive (vandalism) info in the articles (to be more specific, it's Pokémon: Best Wishes! article) causing us (users) to undo his edits which is kind of starting an edit war. There isn't any citation or proof related to the info this ip provides (even though I know it's completely fan-made a.k.a fake). Kindly deal with him/her, I'm asking from you because I think you're an admin and you can handle it better, thank you. ♫♪Adyniz♪♫ 23:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I advised the IP on his talk page. As far as administrative actions are concerned, it may be a good idea for another uninvolved admin to look at it if such editing continues, if only to have a fresh set of eyes looking at it. –MuZemike 00:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot mike :) ♫♪Adyniz♪♫ 00:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD close[edit]

Thank you for AfD/Prem Chand Pandey. "No consensus" will of course make nobody happy but I can't think of a fairer alternative. I appreciate your explanation, especially these days when other AfD closers don't condescend to do more than the bare minimum, thereby wasting more time. -- Hoary (talk) 01:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great minds...[edit]

...think alike, sometimes at the exact same time! Drmies (talk) 02:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank semi-spam[edit]

Thanks for your considered support of my RfA, which has closed as successful. I appreciate your taking the time to evaluate my candidacy. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IP unblock[edit]

Thanks for your assistance. I've been at the library all afternoon fighting this, and almost as soon as I posted the link on my talk page, you unblocked me and i could get to work. Quick response. Ragityman (talk) 00:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

∆bot, SPI[edit]

wonder what's going on with the template include on WP:SPI... --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be because we hit the transclusion limit set by the servers

<!-- 
NewPP limit report
Preprocessor node count: 35020/1000000
Post-expand include size: 2047960/2048000 bytes
Template argument size: 70235/2048000 bytes
Expensive parser function count: 100/500
-->

ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 17:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fyi that is the wrong triangle. –xeno^talk 17:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are many S's I DG. Proper triangle selection is quite low on my list. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I'm looking forward to SPI being usable again. --jpgordon^{::==( o )}

IP unblock[edit]

Sockpuppet investigations/They're putting up reindeer[edit]

There is some quacking going on, so the SPI should be restarted or the sock just blocked. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 07:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked the now-obvious sock. Thanks, –MuZemike 07:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"They're putting up reindeer"??? Please tell me that means something other than hoisting an actual reindeer onto your roof and nailing it there with a nailgun, because I could totally see some guy from Kentucky or West Virginia doing that. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why would they use a nailgun? Drmies (talk) 02:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now I understand. I was going to ask how User:MPEGLA had figured that out so quickly--and then I find that they themselves are blocked as socks. Does it ever stop? Drmies (talk) 03:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, in parts of Kentucky and West Virginia (and sadly Virginia too), you see people up on their roofs nailing Christmas lights to the roof with a nailgun. I have seen/heard it, it ain't pretty. That is where the nailgun part came from. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I figured why use a nailgun when you can use a shotgun? Happy hunting, Homer! Drmies (talk) 04:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not for me though, don't hunt, but I eat meat, go figure. But deer season is coming up, I will probably see some deer strapped to a truck going down the road soon. Wonder when Wabbit Season is? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected socks of Karmaisking[edit]

ZealotsProjectTheirInsanity (talk · contribs)
BigFrother (talk · contribs)

Gleaned from the revision history of Murray Rothbard.

FreshWaterWillSoonBeALuxury (talk · contribs)
BernardZeal (talk · contribs)

Gleaned from the revision history of Malinvestment

I would add them to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Karmaisking but that page is semi-protected. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 11:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, good. Elockid endorsed for CU, which I would have also done. –MuZemike 18:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked user still editing[edit]

Hi, you blocked sockpuppet User:Jehonathan here. He is still editing his talk page here and here. How does that work? BlackCab (talk) 19:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The software allows that so that blocked users can request unblocking on their user page. Talk page access can be revoked, but the default setting is to allow it. Reach Out to the Truth 19:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He hasn't made that request. He is deleting earlier comments. BlackCab (talk) 19:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he is allowed to delete whatever on his talk page with the exception of declined unblock requests. Besides, I don't think his "rant" on his talk page (with basically "owns up" to the socking) is very constructive. –MuZemike 02:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems odd to block someone and then let them do what they want, but if that's the policy I'll leave his talk page alone. BlackCab (talk) 09:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

multiple sock user back again[edit]

are the "contributions"/actions of

Allme128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Yourseeisme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

WP:DUCK enough recreations of

Allmetgonzaga (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and
Justsoyouknow9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) et al

that you would block them here or do I need to file sock puppet request? Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 02:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I got the blocks. You may wish to get an admin on Commons to do the same (and no, I am not an admin over there but a helpless newbie) as well as check on the copyright status of those images. –MuZemike 02:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 02:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple anonymous IPs questions[edit]

Thanks for your input in that discussion on the wikipedia talk page detailing sockpuppetry. I have several more questions about similar subject matter, this time about actually reporting a multiple anonymous IP user. Is there a specifically designed page for such reporting? Also, what administrator(s) can I go to in order to report this information if there isn't a designated page for rerporting that activity? Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 02:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would probably say WP:SPI is OK to go to if you know the IPs are the same person. –MuZemike 02:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks a lot for the help. I hope to get to that business tomorrow, because I need to get prepared for nightly sleep. Cheers. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 03:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page Deletion Help[edit]

Hi MuZemike - My page was deleted and I'm not sure why. I am not affiliated with the company, and I modeled the page after ADT & Diebold since they offer a similar service. Can you please tell me what is different about my page that it has been taken down, and what I need to do to fix it? ThanksAmiepeterson (talk) 04:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the page because it was clearly written in a promotional tone. Basically, it needs to be rewritten in a neutral tone that also includes some coverage from reliable secondary sources that is independent of the company. –MuZemike 04:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Funny[edit]

With this edit, you actually tripped the "Possible self promotion in userspace" filter. :) I didn't know admins could trip those. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gigogag[edit]

User:Pwnage134 was blocked due to his username (?), and created Gigogag's most recent sock, User:VaderZeus (see here). Can you disable Pwnage134's account creation rights so he doesn't create another sock? Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, though I don't think it is going to do much. –MuZemike 04:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind; I saw that you linked above. I suppose if the Aspies from that school are going to find a way to disrupt Wikipedia, they will exploit it. –MuZemike 04:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and I think it is only one person (Gigogag), and not his friends like he claims. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image Question[edit]

On the article Kelley Washington, there is a really really bad picture of the player. I looked on the Philadelphia Eagles website and found this great photo. I am going to assume it was taken by someone at the Eagles, which would make it an NFL photo....could we use it? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answered by another admin. Thanks though. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jasmer.com AfD[edit]

Thank you for closing the AfD on jasmere.com without deleting the article. I would like to ask one question about the discussion. Why didn’t you feel it was worthy of a Keep decision? There were several arguments on both sides, but the ones in favor of Keep had better rationale and substantiation. The Delete comments (other than one) were either no longer applicable or incorrect. Three tags were placed on the article and all were removed during this process. Also, the admin who started the AfD in the first place ended the discussion by agreeing that it was both notable and not overly promotional. He also wrote here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Toddst1#Jasmere.com_AfD) that it was “worthy of a keep”. Could I ask you to take another look at the discussion and see if it should be a Keep? Jbernfeld (talk) 18:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fairly simple, actually. The deletion side cited advertising and notability concerns, while the retention side cited notability and sourcing. Neither side really prevailed in the AFD, hence the "no consensus" close. Remember that such closes default to "keep". I felt my close was proper here as there was no consensus established in the discussion – that is what we look for in closing AFDs. In either case, you should not have much to worry about as the article was in fact kept. –MuZemike 18:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ResearchEditor socks[edit]

Hi,

I'm in agreement that the sockpuppet is RE based on behaviour alone, and thanks for blocking. However, my greater concern was any unnoticed socks he created in the meantime that engaged in his usual patter of edits on other pages. CheckUser in the past has turned up other socks I hadn't managed to find through watchlisting and other means, and I was mostly interested in that.

So...I guess my question is, is there any way to get that information other than checkuser, or can a checkuser be run for that reason instead? Thanks, WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there[edit]

This thread relates to a recent block that you were involved in. It relates to IRC, and some incident or other. Can you possibly comment as to what's going on here. I'm really not happy with the circumstances here and the way it's shaping up right now. Thanks - Alison ^❤ 20:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

article protection[edit]

Hello, could you protect or semi-protect Al Akhbar (Lebanon). It is being regularily invaded by POV warriors and vandals. Thanks Tec15 (talk) 07:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drork[edit]

Do I have to open a new SPI? [7] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he's stopped now and hasn't edited in about 10 hours, so I don't think blocking will do any good. –MuZemike 16:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think he will stop now? [8] A user has re added his comments at the talkpage, claiming that he has not been determined "officially" as a sock: [9]. So some admin needs to say something "officially" about this. I have opened a SPI:[10] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not necessary; we are not a bureaucracy. If that was a dynamic IP, which probably is likely, then what good is blocking going to do here, assuming Drork has moved on to another IP? Admins and CheckUsers can only do so much short of semi-protection of the talk page~~, which (1) there is not enough disruption to justify and (2) there have not been any IP editing on that talk page for a long time. I'm not sure what else you really want done here~~. –MuZemike 16:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you make a post on the SPI if you believe its his sock or not? As I explained above, some people do not accept the removal of his comments from the Golan Heights talkpage. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page Deletion Help[edit]

I have updated content for my page with secondary sources. How should I proceed with re-posting the article? Amiepeterson (talk) 21:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you post in your userspace as a draft so I can look at it? You can click the redlink at User:Amiepeterson/NAVCO Business Security Services if you wish. Keep in mind that I deleted the page because it was a bit too overtly promotional in tone; it needs to be more neutral than in the case is was beforehand. Regards, –MuZemike 21:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been posted to the userspace. Please let me know which sections (if any) are still promotional. Amiepeterson (talk) 20:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll try and get to it when I can. –MuZemike 20:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jehonathan/Archive[edit]

Good call on this. CU confirms your conclusion was correct. Can you or another clerk merge Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Flowerman75 into the Jehonathan case. They are the same individual. Thanks! KnightLago (talk) 02:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thanks. –MuZemike 17:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations[edit]

Congrats on your new CheckUser tool. Use it well! --Bsa dow ski1 03:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mike! Congrats! Excellent candidate. Cheers Tom my! 03:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, new CheckUser[edit]

Congratulations, your CheckUser rights are activated and ready for use.

Before use, please ensure you are familiar with our CheckUser policy and our privacy policy

The list administrator for checkuser-l has been informed of your new status and will allow you to join the list. When performing a checkuser with potential cross-wiki complications, please use the list to coordinate your activities with checkusers across other projects.

If you use IRC, please contact an op for access to #wikimedia-privacy and #wikimedia-checkuser.

Again, congratulations. Kylu (talk) 03:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CUdecline[edit]

I edit-conflicted with you trying to do that exact thing! TNXMan 14:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/2ne14ever[edit]

This was my first "official" check - would you mind reviewing it for me? Thanks! TNXMan 14:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. I would have concluded the exact same thing. –MuZemike 17:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Playback singer[edit]

Hi. May I suggest semiprotection of Playback singer? It appears the sockpuppet has been blocked, and autoconfirm will prevent new sockpuppet accounts from being an issue. Thanks. --Bsherr (talk) 23:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that Proofreader here amassed more than 10 edits before going right to the Playback singer article; he did that just to get autoconfirmed so he could get around the semi-protection. That was why I full-protected there. –MuZemike 23:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Got it now. Thanks. --Bsherr (talk) 00:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI[edit]

An SPI where you previously commented has been reopened. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nableezy. Sincerely, --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fuuuuuuuuu... –MuZemike 05:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Email sent[edit]

Mike, I sent you some email about a current SPI case. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Playback singer[edit]

This page had a semi-protection set for a few months. You changed the level to full protection, but now as it expired it's not at all protected. Could you please reprotect it in semi mode? Shahid • ^Talk2me 07:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for reminding me. –MuZemike 12:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Return of the Xgmx[edit]

Hi Mike, looks like there are two new User:Xgmx socks: User:Neptune92 and User:SaturnElite. I'm travelling abroad at the moment and am only on WP for very short periods of time, not enough to look into it more closely or request a SPI, but at first glance the identity looks very obvious to me. Just thought I'd drop you a note, given that you have some experience in identifying xgmx socks. Sorry for any trouble. --bonadea contributions talk 12:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll run a CU when I get a chance later today. –MuZemike 12:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed, blocked, and tagged.

IP blocked as well. –MuZemike 14:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AIV[edit]

Hi MuZemike - could you assist me at WP:AIV - there seems to be some reports regarding sockpuppetry, in which I have virtually no experience in, so I'm a bit unsure as to what to do. Anything you can do would be appreciated. Connormah (talk) 18:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gay Nigger Association of America up for Deletion Review[edit]

Hello! Since you participated in The MfD, you might be interested in participating in the Deletion Review, as well.

LiteralKa (talk) 04:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't know if I'll get around to it, as I'll be a bit busy (with RL and other, more pressing WP stuff), but if I get a chance... –MuZemike 04:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem, thanks for the quick response. LiteralKa (talk) 04:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't this an article that had been salted under a different name about a year ago? Recommend this be salted as well. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, OK, let's discuss it over there and not here, please. No need to inadvertently cause any ruckus here. –MuZemike 04:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No ruckus meant, just popped into my head as something that was salted previously under a different name. I will post the same at DRV. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Policies / Vanity Pages[edit]

Hi. I'm fairly new to editing WP pages, and I was wondering if you could help me understand a WP policy. The AFD tag was recently removed from the "Stephen Prosapio" page. Why? This appears to be nothing but a self-promotion page created by an un-noteworthy individual attempting to market a self-published e-book. Can any person who has ever been featured in a minor news article create a vanity page now? Can I create a page to discuss my own career as an engineer and my handful of grad-school publications? Where exactly is the "noteworthy" line drawn? And how long is an article supposed to stay up for deletion before the tag is removed? I tried to find this info on my own, but ended up link-clicking in circles. Thanks! ReasonsAdvocate (talk) 05:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I closed the AFD on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Prosapio, and I saw no consensus for deletion after reading the arguments from both sides. It came down to whether or not the newspaper sources established notability, and nobody came to any agreements or consensus on that. When an AFD discussion closes, the closing administrator (me, in this case) customarily removes the AFD tag if the result is anything other than a deletion.

As far as notability guidelines are concerned, the ones that are of relevance here are the general notability guideline and the specific notability guidelines for authors; generally, if one of them is satisfied, then the subject is presumed notable (of course, I'll always add that it doesn't necessarily prevent merging if that is feasible and makes sense, but that's another issue altogether). –MuZemike 06:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification about removing the AFD tag from the "Stephen Prosapio" page. But I'm still a bit confused. Neither the author nor the book seem to remotely meet the criteria for notability. Was there perhaps no consensus for deletion only because few people looked at the page? I've seen pages deleted for minor UFC fighters and bit-actors, people far more noteworthy than this guy. He has two pages up to promote himself and his self-published ebook. The core of my confusion is why a WP admin would not delete the page or at least vote for it's deletion, rather than let it be. Really, not trying to be contention, just confused.

ReasonsAdvocate (talk) 04:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request of Megaidler[edit]

Hello MuZemike. Megaidler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in the SPI case, the behavioral patterns are spot-on. Compare some similar edits:

Golan heights is our → [11]
Golan heights is not occupied → [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18],
Improvisealot123 → [19]
Megaidler → [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], ad nauseam

Look at how all the comments consist of short, choppy lines, not to mention all focusing on the same subjects, including Golan Heights and the Yom Kippur War. I found it too coincidental that they're all editing in the exact same way to be copycats of each other. –MuZemike 15:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me like someone who doesn't speak English well. I would give him the ArbCom sanctions warning and unblock. Megaidler was around long before the others and wasn't included in the SPI. --Selket ^Talk 16:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Claritas are you sure?[edit]

Are you sure she didnt get caught up by mistake? Weaponbb7 (talk) 02:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid not. Keep in mind I had to double-check this with another CU because it didn't make sense to me when I first saw it. That said, looking at the CU results, you cannot get any more confirmed than what I saw; everything matched up. You may also wish to take a look at her recent contribs, as well, which overlaps with Transformers/AFD-related stuff, I'm afraid. Anyways, that is specifically why I am leaving this to the community to figure out what is going on here and what actions need to be taken. –MuZemike 02:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I trust you man, but this is shocking to say the least. Weaponbb7 (talk) 02:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So... to what extent can we be sure Claritas' various other deletion activities weren't tainted? On initial look through, I only see the Transformers overlaps, but Claritas has been involved in a large number of recent fiction deletion debates... "List of fictional characters with (attribute)" for example. Jclemens (talk) 02:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

balancivity.com[edit]

You missed a domain:

thetopbusinessideas.blogspot.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

See [30]. Additional IPs:

41.243.46.224 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
41.244.197.198 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

They have the same Adsense ID. MER-C 06:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was not aware of that one, too - just the one account that I saw spamming the one URL. –MuZemike 06:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NAVCO Business Security Systems Deletion[edit]

Hi, Can you please take a look at the article posted to my userpage and let me know if it's now suitable? Thanks. Amiepeterson (talk) 13:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's still going to need a little work, especially in formatting. I have you a little start, but you need to get a feel of how articles on companies are written here. It might be a good idea for you to look at examples of other company articles on Wikipedia. This cheatsheet may also help you out as far as how wiki articles here are formatted. Hope this helps, –MuZemike 23:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection[edit]

Do you have any problem if the page John Paul Jones, a page you protected years ago is unprotected? The page were under WP:PC and the vandalism seemed to be reduced. I taked it to WP:RFUP, but I were requested to take it with the protecting admin. Thank you. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 22:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I protected the article 3 months ago :) There were a few vandal edits during the PC trial, but if you feel it's scant enough to unprotect, I won't oppose. –MuZemike 23:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 23:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SPI follow up[edit]

Thank you for the help with the SPI case Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/190fordhouse. If you would, take a quick look at 208.54.83.0/24 and see if you think a rangeblock on it's appropriate as well. That range has had the following (at least) over the last month: Special:Contributions/208.54.83.71, Special:Contributions/208.54.83.68, Special:Contributions/208.54.83.55, Special:Contributions/208.54.83.52, Special:Contributions/208.54.83.77, Special:Contributions/208.54.83.73, and others...

The collateral damage would be on these IPs Special:Contributions/208.54.83.59, Special:Contributions/208.54.83.58, Special:Contributions/208.54.83.56 who have edited this September (some of those edits have issues of their own, but I don't think it's the same sock). The problem is it's a T-Mobile range and this is what the sock is using for hopping, which I'd only expect to get worse now that the other couple of IPs are blocked. Oddly I don't think this sock has managed to get outside of this /24 block on T-mobile. I haven't noticed anything outside of that. I'll keep an eye on these myself, but it might be useful to take a look. Thanks for your help. Shadowjams (talk) 03:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the range is too busy to block; would most certainly result in collateral damage. –MuZemike 03:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ronron101010/Archive[edit]

Thanks. RashersTierney (talk) 11:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps another sock of User:CreativeEndeavors[edit]

Looks like the Sockmaster has created another account this time the persona isn't screaming racism and seems calmer so far. The account name is User:JaneDanielsPR- Mcmatter (talk|contrib) 03:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Got another one: 74.3.2.83 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Argh, I'm beginning to wonder if we need an edit filter for this tripe. Anyways, hardblocked. –MuZemike 19:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And again: 67.102.213.115 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) This time s/he brought a link to an article they wrote about Wikipedia. [31]. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DRV pages semi-protected. –MuZemike 22:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also gave Godwin a heads up. –MuZemike 22:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This time, he edited one of the DRV talk pages as 64.245.114.186 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, already taken care of. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Odokee block[edit]

muzemike, we've been having a discussion about this on AN/I and at least a couple of people are in agreement that Odokee needs a much longer block for multiple issues, and that was before he was caught evading his block on one of those issues. Edit warring is one thing, but the constant bad faith editing, refusing to engage in proper communication and now block evasion spells someone who isn't really fitting into the community. I don't know if even another 24 hours is enough for him to get it and the disruption to stop. (discussion is still there if you want to give it a read)--Crossmr (talk) 23:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alaaan[edit]

Based on Alaaan's legal threat here I think User:Afflete's foot may be the same user based on the name of the law firm here. Since you're a checkuser, I thought you might want to look into it. Cheers Tom my! 01:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Advice[edit]

Can I ask your advice on this AFD? The two Keep !votes look suspicious to me and I suspect they may be from the same person abusing multiple accounts - their edit histories look all too similar. The creator of the article in question also appears to be possibly the same person. I'm reluctant to start a sockpuppet case without some better evidence, particularly since one of the accounts has been around for a while, but I think I hear quacking. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 06:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Another keep !vote has weighed in which also looks suspicious. It appears that there are several accounts that exist largely to add content relating to the film Sparrow (film) and the associated actors and crew, most of which do not appear to be notable, and at least one of which worked with the subject of this AFD on a film. --Michig (talk) 11:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All

Confirmed; I'll post the results on the AFD. –MuZemike 17:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated.--Michig (talk) 18:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...[edit]

... for deleting my userpage :) たかはりい_Talk! 03:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Swords to ploughshares[edit]

So you want him to put down the plowshare, does that mean you want him to pick up the sword? ;-) ---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, crap, I had the "plowshare" and "sword" reversed :| –MuZemike 18:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, it gave me a good laugh ;-)---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inniverse[edit]

I don't see this as a wheel-warring situation: I didn't override the unblock when it was done, or even raise any objections. When checkuser fingered him as socking again, I signalled my intention to reblock 24 hours in advance and received support from Hersfold and objections from no one. If consensus says my action was improper, I'll unblock, but let's see what happens.—Kww(talk) 18:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Oops![edit]

I'm really sorry about that. I was looking through pages on my watchlist and instead of clicking on the report (i wanted to see what was said as I've had dealings with the user in question) I accidently clicked rollback.... *my bad!*-- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 13:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it. I assumed it was an honest mistake :) –MuZemike 14:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding a sock[edit]

Re: this comment. Now there's a sock for you to block here. :-) Nymf _hideliho! 13:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Tnxman307 was too quick. Nymf _hideliho! 14:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I think I found the old user you were referring to. It's probably User:Rock&MetalFan. Nymf _hideliho! 14:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IAR speedy deletion?[edit]

Resolved

Hi, since you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Get a live as an IAR speedy delete, I thought I'd bring Naw, word to your attention as I think the same action would be appropriate here; I've prodded it as it doesn't actually meet any of the CSD , but I don't think it's worth waiting 7 days for this article to be deleted. I'll leave it to you to decide if speedy deletion is appropriate here or if the PROD should be used. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, it was deleted by another admin under A1. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Park51[edit]

I agree with semi-protecting, but would you mind modifying the reason listed? Currently, every time anyone goes to edit it, they see the edit reason "The hell with PC; Grawp is going to keep raping the goddamn article!" --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That, unfortunately, is the truth - Grawp *has* been adding racist garbage and death threats to that article ever since NawlinWiki *first* put PC on it. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v PC/SP is a show-trial!)} 05:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; but I don't care for advertising Grawp's work to everyone who clicks edit on the page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I unprotected and re-protected with a generic reason. –MuZemike 05:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did the same with the PC-protection. –MuZemike 05:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Barek: if you block a Grawp sock, please immediately yank talk page and email. –MuZemike 05:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, will do in the future. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MuZemike, there's currently discussion about the semi-protection of the page here on WP:RFPP. Airplaneman ✈ 06:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

banned user is back[edit]

Hey MuZemike, how are you? months ago you banned this account http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ChristiaandeWet for (Abusing multiple accounts: Continued block evasion and edit warring)

Well, I suspect he is back with a new sock and well faked account, reverting changes without consensus and vandalizing wikipedia's content at will, I suspect that he may have a seemed ip to the banned one ChristiaandeWet new account : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bruichladdich1 I suspect that he may have a seemed ip to the banned one Pietje96 (talk) 16:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is pretty much the same as ChristiaandeWet; blocked. –MuZemike 01:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey MuZemike he is back with a new sockpuppet account http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LordByng Pietje96 (talk) 10:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't see this all the way up here :| Anyways, LordByng (talk · contribs) and Dr. Charles Henry Moffett (talk · contribs) have been blocked; the underlying IP has been blocked for 1 year. –MuZemike 14:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another sock?[edit]

I suspect we have another sock of User:BerylTurns50 - User:SheepGoBaaa. Edits began while the former was still blocked.--Michig (talk) 15:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I probably didn't need to run a CU, but did anyways, and it's

Confirmed; BerylTurns50's block is now indef, and I will be shortly hardblocking the underlying IP involved. –MuZemike 15:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Michig (talk) 19:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CFDS time frame[edit]

Categories listed at WP:CFDS need to remain there for a minimum of 48 hours before being speedily renamed, as noted on the instruction page there. Thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 12:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And Category:Toronto police officers to Category:Police officers from Toronto was clearly objected to on the page, so I have no idea why you performed that rename speedily. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 12:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because the instructions are incredibly vague; that should NOT be titled "speedy renaming", then. –MuZemike 13:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First line: "Categories may be listed here if they fall under the criteria specified below. Deletion and de-listing may occur after 48 hours if there are no objections." I'm not sure how one could call that "extremely vague", but perhaps if you have trouble understanding it you could ask for clarifications. ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how to go about this[edit]

Hi MuZ, you've worked on several requests for checkuser that I have submitted so I'm hoping you can help me out with a particular situation. I have suspicions that a new user [32] is a sockpuppet... however this user could potentially be one of TWO (currently blocked) sockpuppeteers whose styles and interests are very similar. [33] [34] Note that the two puppeteers are not related to each other. I need advice on the best way to submit a request. Would checkuser clerks accept a request for "if it's not this person, can you also check this person?" or is it best to submit two separate requests, both showing the new user as the sock? - eo (talk) 15:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I already ran a CU, and I'm afraid I cannot establish any connection with the account in question; seem to be very unrelated on basis of technical evidence. Sorry, –MuZemike 18:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well that was easy. Thanks for going ahead with checking them, you saved me some time. Til the next one.... - eo (talk) 19:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

email[edit]

On the Charlie Anders edit log page, you asked for people who wanted to talk about the page's edits to email you. I can't find your email address - how can I email you? 76.169.139.54 (talk) 20:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A registered account can use the "email this user" function on the left to email a user, but to do so the account needs email enabled. IPs don't have this luxury; you might be better off contacting him via IRC at #wikipedia-en@freenode.net —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v PC/SP is a show-trial!)} 20:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sexual eugenics[edit]

Is there anyway to do a rangeblock on the range the user is using to keep them from popping up on any IPs or any other accounts? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, no. We're dealing with public IPs here. –MuZemike 01:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Darn. I guess the best possible way is to keep a close eye on the pages they have edited and semi-protect those as needed and play whack-a-mole. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Filter 341[edit]

Would you be able to pare back the recent edits to filter 341 a little? The potential for false positives is large.~ ~~I won't do it because I haven't seen the edits for which it was designed.~~ I made one change, but it might ruin the purpose, so if that's true please revert it but if possible see if you can come up with a solution that won't create many false positives. —Soap— 10:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request of Juancarlos131291[edit]

Hello MuZemike. Juancarlos131291 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. My inclination is to give the user a second chance, but to watch his edits carefully. However, I thought I would give you the chance to comment if you want to before taking action. Regards, JamesBWatson (talk) 17:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not against giving him a second chance; however, he needs to understand what he did is not acceptable, which it looks like for the most part he did. –MuZemike 20:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adding WikiProject Categories a Violation of WP:BLP?[edit]

I noticed that you blocked Communityorganizerclown for repeatedly adding a WP:LGBT template to Talk:Eddie Long. I'm a little confused as to the policy surrounding WikiProject templates.

A few months ago I was admonished by a third opinion (also supported by two admins) for removing a WikiProject Scientology template from Talk:Sharron Angle. At the time, the Sharron Angle article was being severely vandalized by anon IPs who were falsely changing Angle's religion to Scientology. I felt that the addition of the template to the talk page was just another attempt to circumvent WP:BLP and insinuate that Angle was somehow a closet Scientologist. A couple of admins disagreed and the template stands to this day.

Of course, it can be argued that the Angle article is a legitimate subject of interest for WikiProject Scientology since Scientology has become a minor issue in the Angle campaign, and I think the article treats the subject with the appropriate weight. However, I think it could be argued that the Eddie Long article is just as relevant to WP:LGBT given that Long has been labeled "one of the most virulently homophobic black leaders in the religiously based anti-gay movement," certainly a man who has some relevance to LGBT studies.

Anyway, I don't want to create any additional controversy. Just looking for clarification. Is User:Amatulic correct that "Any WikiProject can bring any article it wants under its wing" or can concerns be raised when it appears that WikiProject templates are being used to violate WP:BLP (such as my hypothetical example of adding WP:ISLAM to Talk:Barack Obama)? Is it just an administrative judgment call? Thanks (and keep up the good work at WP:SPI)! Uncle Dick (talk) 06:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you mentioned about trying to work around BLP concerns was what I had in mind when I made the block. When you suspect someone as being gay, there had better be some verifiability behind that before considering changing WikiProject tags as such; that user did not, and he persisted to try and edit war that in, not to mention this edit summary, (which, now that I look at it again, may need to be RevDeleted, but it's iffy) is a very serious accusation, depending on how one reads that.

Not to mention, this edit leaves me to think other things aren't right here. –MuZemike 06:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's all a moot point, now. I just found that he's a confirmed sock of User:Brucejenner (after looking at the wrong IP range the last time) :| –MuZemike 06:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reference library sources[edit]

Hi. I noticed that you are listed, at the WP:VG Reference Library, as having access to most issues of VideoGames & Computer Entertainment. As such, I was wondering if you'd be able to find a few reviews for me.

Specifically, I'm looking for reviews for the Looking Glass Studios games Ultima Underworld: The Stygian Abyss, System Shock, and Terra Nova: Strike Force Centauri. Since, for the most part, issue content is not detailed on your list, all I can give you is the release date for each game. The review should be in one of the issues around the month of the game's release.

Ultima Underworld: Released March 1992.
System Shock: March 1994.
Terra Nova: February 1996.

The first two are featured articles that I'm looking to improve, and the last is an article I'm currently spiffing up. It'd be a great help to have scans of these reviews. If it's not possible/you're too busy, sorry to bother you. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't think I have any VG&CE issues past 1991 so far; I'm still looking around and seeing if I can get a hand on them. –MuZemike 21:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay. Thanks, anyway. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit filter 341 misbehaving[edit]

I tried to leave this on User talk:Count Iblis and Edit Filter 341 kicked in and rejected it...

":Just as an aside - I didn't see this happen (was busy / off wiki) but IMHO, despite having proposed extending the prior advocacy ban a few weeks ago, this particular incident doesn't seem to have been disruptive to me. I don't see anything you posted here as being further evidence that the prior advocacy ban should be renewed, Count Iblis. ~~~~"

Obviously the filter's doing something really wrong - I don't know why it picked up the edit, but I suspect it's the hotel IP range I'm in at the moment plus some of the comment content. Seems a little easily triggered if that's it. Might want to tune it down a bit...

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I tweaked it so that only non-confirmed users would be affected; I don't know why when I put the one IP function in there it still registered as a hit. Try it again and see if you can edit the same thing. –MuZemike 15:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MuZemike. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

VaderZeus[edit]

Gigogag wants your attention at User talk:VaderZeus. I think Gigogag will not sock anymore, as stated on that talk page in August, and think he can be a net positive for the community. It's up to you, of course, to decide what to do about him. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, due to his propensity to lie and deceive us before persistently, I will not entertain any unblock request from him. Keep in mind the articles Gigogag has tried to create, such as Eye-stabbing, Uber pownage, and Fart mcnugget; he has also tried to blatantly lie through stuff like this. Also, the correct email address should be unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org. Regards, –MuZemike 20:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the user who created Fart mcnugget does not seem to be a sock of Gigogag. He/she was just a common vandal. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI[edit]

You may be interested in this. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MuZemike, Questions about statements you may or may not have made have been raised at this AN/I, so I figured I would drop you a note to let you know, in the event you decide such warrants your attention. Thanks, Robert ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 02:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ip's[edit]

Hey there, new accounts of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ChristiaandeWet (IP's)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/90.213.156.251 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/94.116.245.30

Pietje96 (talk) 01:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, those two specific IPs are fairly stale. I've instead semi-protected Siege of Melilla (1774) 1 month and Template:Campaignbox Anglo-Spanish War (1779) 3 months. –MuZemike 01:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CU challenged[edit]

FYI, there is a questioning of efficacy of Check User wrt SPI in which you were involved. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 14:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as comparing User:Factocop and User:Blue is better are concerned, after re-checking, you cannot possibly get anymore confirmed than what I am seeing, I'm quite certain another CU will agree with me on that. Perhaps someone should ask Factocop about his relation to Blue is better? –MuZemike 14:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think they are already being indulged enough. Just giving you a 'heads up' in case you hadn't spotted it. RashersTierney (talk) 14:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Factocop[edit]

HI Mike Apologies for bothering you, but could you look at The Maiden City CU again[35]. User:Factocop is challenging the CU result. What you said last time looks pretty incontravetible to me but let me know--Cailil ^talk 16:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He did confess to block evasion using another sockpuppet though, for the record. O Fenian (talk) 16:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure can, I'll point you directly to the section above :) –MuZemike 17:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Mike and thanks - Factocop re-blocked with talk page access revoked.--Cailil ^talk 19:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...[edit]

...for semi-protecting list of industrial music bands. —Torchiest ^talk/_edits 17:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you have time[edit]

I've only rarely (once that I remember) ventured into SPI so I'm in search of guidance/assistance/advice. A matter with which you've had some acquaintance led me to this edit. I've messaged the user inquiring as to motive, but their actions seem ducky to me and I suspect I won't get a reply for 48 hours. Would there be any benefit in bringing this to SPI? Thanks for any input. Tiderolls 06:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, not really. In any case, it is clear that they're the same user. I wouldn't block right now, though until this person decides to actually become constructive again; it not, we can block him, also. –MuZemike 14:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help with two WP:VG assessments[edit]

Hey, I know you're busy, but if you could, would you do a quick review of #2 and #3 at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Assessment/Requests? I'm trying to get my current projects all to B-Class. Thanks! --Teancum (talk) 17:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigations/Seleukosa[edit]

Please come and read my answer to the accusation. I strongly protest the accusation. [[36]]Seleukosa (talk) 11:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Meatspin28[edit]

Thank you for your block on this user. I wanted to let you know that the user has elected to "vanish" your block template on their page. I am uncertain if they are allowed to do this during their block period. Hasteur (talk) 13:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, there's actually a discussion about this here, but I personally am against to what they're proposing; it doesn't really matter to me if the user does or not, as long as unblock requests aren't blanked. He may need to be informed that everything is still present in the pages' histories, so blanking block templates, AFD tags, etc. accomplish virtually nothing. –MuZemike 14:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this explains a lot. Stuff like this is a good reason why little kids need to stay away from Wikipedia in general, pedophilia notwithstanding; then again, there would be virtually no way to enforce age limits (YouTube is a prime example of such failure to do so; look at all the accounts there who claim to be 106 years old). –MuZemike 14:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2010 September newsletter[edit]

We are half-way through our final round, entering the home straight. TonyTheTiger (submissions) leads at the time of writing with 1180 points, immediately followed by Sasata (submissions) with 1175 points. Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) closely follows in third place with 1100 points. For those who are interested, data about the finalists has been compiled at Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2010/finalists, while a list of content submitted by all WikiCup contestants prior to this round has been compiled at Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2010/Submissions. As ever, anything contestants worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Despite controversy, the WikiCup remains open. Signups for next year's competition are more than welcome, and suggestions for how next year's competition will work are appreciated at Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Scoring. More general comments and discussions should be directed at the WikiCup talk page. One month remains in the 2010 WikiCup, after which we will know our champion. Good luck everyone! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 23:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello :)[edit]

Hi there, I'm User:Addihockey10, you may have heard of me, if you haven't - well here I am :). I was wondering, I was looking for someone to coach me and help me understand policies to an administrator caliber. I have put a request at WP:Admin coaching but it looks pretty inactive at the moment. I was wondering if you (or someone you know) would be willing to be my admin coach. Thank you for your consideration. Happy editing! --Addi hockey 10 17:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:AbraKadabraAlakazam.png[edit]

Just wondering, what exactly did you do here? _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 22:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just compressed the size of the PNG a little bit; there shouldn't be any cosmetic changes to the image itself. –MuZemike 22:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then. It just did not change much in size, so I was wondering if it was worth it. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 22:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh hey, just letting you know that I commented on your assessment. Just in case you didn't watch the page. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 02:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scaredy_Bat[edit]

How do you know User:Scaredy_Bat is a sock puppet of User:Kagome_85?

And did User:Scaredy_Bat make any posts at all?

>.> sorry User:Kagome_85 forced me to quit here because of consent harassment and cyber stalking I use to be. User:Moukity

User:Kagome_85 actually has other accounts other then whats listed here

142.163.135.140 (talk) 22:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have checkuser, that's why. –MuZemike 22:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh OK Thank You Tho I must warn you User:Kagome_85 Will just make another account after another, It will never stop.

142.163.135.140 (talk) 23:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Scruffy" vandal[edit]

He's apparently planning a mass addition of "scruffy" to tons of talk pages tomorrow. He's also using multiple IP addresses. Could you please rangeblock him? ~Nerdy Science Dude 22:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where did he say this? –MuZemike 22:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

71.178.152.143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

71.178.154.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I don't know where the threat was, but Scruffy is talking about "2:30" for some naughtiness. (I'm assuming the range would be too wide - might be easier just to semi various users' talkpages). TFOWR 22:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The threat is here. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: See also some archived older discussions:

--- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can I haz sox?[edit]

Hi, just curious if you'd be willing to run a CU on Zarapastroso (talk · contribs), Isvie Mandalov (talk · contribs), and all IPs used to check for unblocked socks (if you haven't already). Thanks in advance, Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 02:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment): Yes, you can haz sox, but onlee in red. kthxbai. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I haven't, and I probably won't bother, most of these ranges are too busy for me to hardblock or even softblock. Oh and Neutralhomer, I'd watch what type of Sox mentioned around here. We don't see red around here, because it's all black and white ;) –MuZemike 04:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I knew I would run into a White Sox fan with that comment. :) At least it wasn't one of these sox. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to open a ban discussion on AN regarding this idiot. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 04:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who's going to preside over the ban discussion? Bill Buckner? –MuZemike 04:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another Yongle sock, this one also vandalising[edit]

Peter I of Russia (talk · contribs) is an obvious Yongle sock, but also taking an AfD template from an AfD I started and adding it to other articles. I thought that the IP range block would stop this. Any suggestions? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 06:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked another range on top of 3 more socks. –MuZemike 06:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Another editor has deleted a template (in Chinese, not English) he created. Dougweller (talk) 07:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AN notice about the scuffy vandal[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 04:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't think that's going to do much to discourage him from his abuse. –MuZemike 04:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's mainly because a de jure ban will make dealing with him easier, especially because he's taking advantage of dynamic IPs. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 04:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands, I already just use RBI with his edits on-sight, as do others. I read far enough to confirm per WP:DUCK, then pull up his contribution page and start hitting the revert button after blocking. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:John254/mass rollback.js Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 05:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A very handy tool. I used it once on a flood of scruffies. ~Nerdy Science Dude 23:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this user scruffy?[edit]

Earlier today (in my timezone at least), What is to be said? (talk · contribs) was blocked as a sock of Zarapastroso (talk · contribs), a.k.a. Scruffy. Now I've noticed Desalinado (talk · contribs) whose activities so far exactly mirror those of the sock's initial career, issuing welcome messages to new users, possibly in order to gain auto-confirmed status. The evidence isn't incriminating enough for a block, but I wonder if an SPI is called for. The first sock let two weeks pass between the initial stage and the actual vandalism, which makes me wonder how many other sleepers are around. Favonian (talk) 17:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about filing an SPI; it's

Confirmed. –MuZemike 18:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another quick thought...[edit]

Dear MuZemike,

Thanks for defending me on WP:AN. I wanted to ask a quick question: Do you think the person will stop now? I think the threat of sanctions with his school/IP will suffice. I think this person was having fun, but I seriously doubt they want real trouble. This contradicts what I said moments ago on Access Denied's talk page, but after noticing your report I decided to interject.

Secondly, I.recommend trying to reconcile with the person. He or she seems to be upset with the project and knowledgeable og certain functions (ex.basic HTML). This person was probably a long time vandal at one point before and simply changed his/her tactics, or (what I personally think) an editor who was disaffected by certain members of the community. Adversaries should be spoken to and reasoned with. They are also a good thing because they make you stronger. So why not ask "Why? What are your motives?". Revert, block, ignore may help for most but maybe not for this person.

Thirdly, I recommend waiting after speaking with the person to see if they'll vandalize again. If they don't, squash it. If they do, send him or her to hell.

Thanks for your time and reflection.68.171.231.16 (talk) 18:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2 more Zarapastroso (talk · contribs) socks[edit]

Fgy85hd (talk · contribs) and Cheesemaster100 (talk · contribs), both of them. Someone needs to get this idiot's head straight. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 23:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, blocked. I don't know what else to do. –MuZemike 23:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fgy85hd's talk was G3'd, was there an unblock request with "Scruffy" repaeted several thousand times? Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 23:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minardi PS05[edit]

Hi MuZemike. I was wondering if you could restore Minardi PS05 (which you deleted under G5) in my userspace, so I can see whether it's worth resurrecting. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 12:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, see User:DH85868993/Minardi PS05. Sorry I didn't get to it earlier. –MuZemike 06:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. No problem. DH85868993 (talk) 08:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser[edit]

With the last little spree, where we've had a whole succession of single-purpose accounts posting in succession with a roughly 7-minute interval between accounts/posts all echoing one another, I'm finding it difficult to suspend my disbelief any more. Could we get a quick checkuser, please? I've not listed the accounts that have been confined to article space, although a link to Jennifer Chang (talk · contribs) or 제니퍼 장 (talk · contribs) would indicate that Chaser (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) may need to look at the OTRS requests in a new light. Uncle G (talk) 18:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CU in progress. As an aside, I am shocked and appalled by stuff like this: [37]. Wow. –MuZemike 21:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I will respond via email to both Uncle G and Chaser regarding my CU results. –MuZemike 21:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you. I have received it. I defer to Chaser's judgement on this. Uncle G (talk) 01:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association[edit]

On 6 October 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association, which you recently nominated. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Wonder Boy PR[edit]

I responded to your question in the Wonder Boy PR page. --Teancum (talk) 18:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Block of User:Andy14and16 on hold[edit]

I'm thinking unblock as they are fully admitting to socking and it has been several months, checking with you first as blocking admin. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI[edit]

This user's contribs have any meaning to you? Like this one. Since he seems to be fond of you I thought I'd let you know in case it is useful to you. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 18:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No need for protection[edit]

Of Scruffy. One random vandal edit is hardly excessive... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Come up with another way to deal with this pesky rodent, and I will listen. –MuZemike 18:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article does not seem to be particularly targeted, do nothing (to the article, I abstain on the rodent problem :>). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll pare down the length of the protection at least, it that helps any. –MuZemike 19:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not like it is a major issue, I am just curious why any protection is needed here? Do you expect that the vandal will return to this article? To me it looked like a totally random attack, with next to no chances of reoccurring (in that particular article) again. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the name of that article is the name of the vandal (i.e. the "Scruffy" vandal) :) –MuZemike 19:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about perm semi then? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think that's going to be too effective, as he can easily obtain enough edits to overcome the semi-protection, as you can see with the other two socks he's used on that article so far. –MuZemike 20:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

even more. Also, Zarapastroso changed his editing style a little and his edits are no longer tagged with "repeating characters" which makes tracking him down harderbecause I would previously filter to repeating charaters in RC then tag the socks Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 06:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bourne Westfield Primary School[edit]

FYI. --Kudpung (talk) 22:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stalker[edit]

Looks like you have a stalker User:MuZomike, I've reported him. NtheP (talk) 17:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question about a CU block[edit]

User:Wolfnix/toolbox/reflink2 Good Afternoon,

I have a request for an account at WP:ACC, and there [{{fullurl:Special:BlockList|ip=71.178.102.21} ip range] (71.178.0.0/16) has a block from you. They have not registered with a ISP based email address, and Deskana said they didn't know about the block, so they deferred it back to us peons. Your opinion in the matter would be appreciated. If you need more information, feel free to contact me, via IRC (Loki), or e-mail (see my user page for information). I would normally give you the WP:ACC link, but I see you do not have an account there (Check Users are welcome, and encouraged to register for an account, for privacy reason)
--Wolfnix • Talk • 19:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC) User:Wolfnix/toolbox/tb[reply]

filter 361[edit]

I'd appreciate t if you'd email me the contents of abuse filter 361. Zarapastroso has chaged approach a little bit and if I saw the code I could probably suggest a few changes. Regards, Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 02:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there hasn't been a single hit on the edit filter for a while. Besides, he cannot view the filter nor its changes, unless he has some secret account that has the edit filter bit enable to allow him to see changes to the edit filter.

I you want, I can just grant you the "edit filter manager" bit if you have any suggestions. –MuZemike 03:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, my regex programmingf skill is pretty bad; I'd probably mess it up. We could probably cover everything if we did the following: (encoded in SHA-512 to prevent Zarapastroso from seeing this)

Section collapsed
94a45d7904bbc9cf1dd1ff90fcbd798f7e9f0a3b1650d725 a5d1541cfd72d1a3b6a86a246e37d5f2317236767fe60df6 c5e3d1f6a381fe2de9eeec0591dfd06e

Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 03:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The story behind Noleander's harassment - masked under "investigating SP"[edit]

Hello muzeika!

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Curvesall

1) Ever since Stonemason89 has acted to delete [[38]] and suspiciously 'got' around 10-12 helpers in the short duration of mere 12 hrs... (sockpuppeting?) His activities have drawn attention, which brought me to the page Noleander posted. 2) Outside wikipedia contact & communcation is NOT against wikipedia rule.

Noleander VS Jews / Judaism and his "blacklist"

Stonemason98 / sockpuppetting and harassment

If Noleabder and Stoneman89 are SP? that's another subject (How else did Stonemason89 got there?), but clearly the salad of names is by (noleander) a user who has dedicated his time and energy on wikipedia against [any] Jews, stoneman89 (who follows/harasses user salamaat some time) who also has an "issue" with anti-Semitism according to his contrbution on Racism in the United States) uses now the blanket pseudo-term: "zionists," [had it been about "zionism," all those users-mentioned-by-Noleander would have been active on Israel all the time, but checking them, they have not] when the subjects are clearly NOT about "zionism" but about defaming Judaism and Jews as a whole, such as the ~~contributions~~ material by Noleander in his rewriting-history pseudo-page 1) "Jews and slavery," defamation push on his 2) "Judaism and violence," contributed immensely to 3) Criticism of the Talmud, when he enlarged the page he's been relentlessly working for months in: 4) "Racism and ethnic discrimination in Israel" (including pushing unrelated material and edit warring about it) he tried to tag it into category: "Judaism related controversies" - because that's his PROJECT! Now he's "busy" claiming that Jews [are so bad that they simply] want "war of annihilation" on his "Judaism and violence" expanded project...

If I were Jewish I'd be very alarmed at this ugly pattern but it should cause concern to anyone as it is a violation of defamation.Historianism (talk) 08:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry and Unfinished Business[edit]

Just wanted to let you know that there is now an official Sockpuppetry nomination on Trendsies, which you already indicated was a sock but did not block. I figure this as a formality, so it's on the record, seeing as you already did the checking. Sven Manguard _Talk 23:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Especially in cases where I find accounts that are not confirmed, I prefer to leave the blocking to other (uninvolved) admins as a "double-check" of sorts. –MuZemike 23:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well then I suppose that putting it in the suspected sock area was both the right and the wrong decision then. I am glad/sorry about that. Sven Manguard _Talk 23:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, you didn't do anything wrong. I ran the CU after seeing that ANI thread and not off some SPI case or anything like that. –MuZemike 23:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

U of W-Madison Fan[edit]

Since you are a U of W-Madison fan, you know there is a userbox for that. Just add {{User:Tom Danson/Userboxes/NCAA-Wisconsin}} and you are set. Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SPI Block[edit]

Thank you for that. I was actually just about to suggest blocking the IP and not the range. After looking into it some the 98.198 IPs don't seem to change as much, as the others (obviously the t-mobile one changes quite a bit). In fact, it looks like the last time it changed was in May, so if IPs are static for at least five months at a time then we're in good shape. Thanks again. Shadowjams (talk) 19:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:BibleBuffetBoxart.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:BibleBuffetBoxart.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Autumn[edit]

Read the edit summaries. I am very thorough about making them. The article read like a student essay. The intro contained material left from the original stub, which was just plain erroneous. Anyone who knew the poem well (as well as reading what some distinguished authors had to say) would not have left such silly errors in the intro.

Numerous poetic devices had been given brief and bald mention, (out of some textbook) without being related to the text in any way. Many ideas drawn from different sources had been lumped together. Sure, they are referenced, but they need to be ordered and stated clearly (rather than misinterpreted) by an editor with a solid understanding of what the literary devices actually mean and what is implied in saying that they are employed in the poem. You don't expect your avaerage reader to understand what is meant by "Augustan inversion" or a "spondee". Yes, they can page hop and find out. But on the other hand, this editor knows precisely what the terms mean, as as well as the average person knows the difference between a noun and a verb, or a vowel and a consonant. I have introduced hardly any new material. I have merely reorganised what was there. I am now looking for References to those sections which were lacking references. The mention of John Constable was my own, in response to the already quoted words of Keats "like a painting". Constable now has a reference, but I will undoubtedly be able to find a better one than that.

I also suggest you read the sections I have chnged, before and after the changes, and you will know why they were made.

Amandajm (talk) 15:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW[edit]

Are you Korean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.164.11.248 (talk) 18:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zend Certified Engineer[edit]

Could you please take a second look at the Zend Certified Engineer deletion discussion?

IMHO there was no consensus to merge, nor valid arguments to do so. The arguments for merging are extraneous and/or are in conflict with the guidelines for merging, "Merging should not be considered if" :

The separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross linked) articles
The topics are discrete subjects and deserve their own articles even though they may be short

Some users have argued that the topic is "not particularly notable", in spite of the fact that reliable sources that discuss 'Zend Certified Engineer' are cited.

The claim that the book "PHP: The Good Parts" cannot be "checked" or that it only mentions ZCE in one sentence is completely false. The book is easily "checked" by anyone who bothers to actually read it. I made a reference to the page of the first mention, which is located at the beginning of the book in the introduction summary chapter and is one sentence long. However, ZCE is discussed throughout the book in many chapters as well as in other reliable sources.

Thanks,

Ofus (talk) 10:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I could have closed the discussion any other way. I see several arguments for merging that were not refuted, even after a full relisting period. Moreover, it seemed that one of the "keep (separate)" arguments were also properly refuted, saying the sources given were not good enough, that they were nothing more than "refactored press releases". Along with the argument from the nominator himself, I felt that the consensus was that at the least it was not notable as a separate stand-alone article, and that a rough consensus for merging has occurred which allowed me to close as such. –MuZemike 14:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

email[edit]

Hiya, I sent you an email the other day; can you just let me know if you got it or not...possibly it got lost in the ether. Cheers, Chzz ► 23:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To Autumn FAR[edit]

As you noted Ottava couldn't comment directly, I am reffering this to you: http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Ottava_Rima/To_Autumn_FAR.

Ottava asked on IRC if I could make a comment, However as English Literature isn't my field of expertise, I felt the points raised would be better examined by someone actually part of the FAR, than a bystander. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Legend of Zelda: Spirit Tracks[edit]

Hey, since you identify as one who has an interest in Zelda titles, I was wondering - could you help me in fixing up the reception to maybe follow, say, Limbo? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and thanks for the Barnstar - much appreciated! - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your input is requested[edit]

I have started an RfC on inappropriate userboxes, i.e. those that don't follow the introductory paragraph at WP:UBX:

"A userbox (commonly abbreviated as UBX) is a small colored box ... designed to appear only on a Wikipedian's user page as a communicative notice about the user, in order to directly (or even indirectly) help Wikipedians collaborate more effectively on articles."

How does a userbox about a user's own preferences in regards to what topics on Wikipedia they hate and what type of sexually explicit material they like and actively view help Wikipedians collaborate with one another? Which is the question I am raising.

This introductory paragraph over at WP:UBX contradicts WP:NOTCENSORED so I'd like you to weigh in at WT:UBX, it'll only take 5 minutes of your time. I've sent this message because the topic has not had much community input

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Fridae'sDoom (talk) at 20:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Blocking[edit]

What does block hardened mean? Jayy008 (talk) 11:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Colorful sheep[edit]

Hi! I remember one time that I got over a page called "Colorful sheep" via Special:RecentChanges. I was the first to pick it up it, before any otherscame & deleted it. nI agree in your deletion, but I want that you shall show me the page, Colorful sheep, here. --Æ e kul æ (talk) 17:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was just passing through and saw this. I'll save you the trouble of looking at this deleted article. Admins generally do not provide copies of deleted pages if the pages were not created in good faith. The page you are requesting a copy of was rightfully deleted as blatant vandalism. There is no chance that providing you with a copy of it would lead to a proper encyclopedia article being created on the subject because it was only a bunch of made up nonsense. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are a hero[edit]

I love you!

Fan. :) --Talktome^(Intelati) 20:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They Did[edit]

Congrats on your Badgers beating Ohio State. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SchoolcraftT on the loose again[edit]

Hi. I have noticed that you dealed with SchoolcraftT's SPI case 6 months ago. He is up again as User:4.248.56.96, and User:72.251.24.26 . Could you deal with this case, as there is no admin currently on patrol at the case. Please see here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SchoolcraftT. Hole in my sock^{jibber jabber} 07:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Attacks[edit]

Hello Muzemike, I would like to bring to your attention about personal attacks made on an individual http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_titles_of_nobility your profile shows that you have honour and fairness when dealing with cases, please can you look in to the lack of neutral statement in this artical and the promotion of websites by editors, I do not ask for special sanction just a fair and balanced point of view within the pillars of wikipedia, thank you Johnkennedy58 (talk) 00:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Telling your previous account to quit edit warring, and pointing out that certain websites sell fake titles that are fake do not qualify as personal attacks. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mario96[edit]

Please note that I added two more socks in an edit conflict.—Kww(talk) 03:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

62.30.168.154 blocked, moved to 80.195.252.144[edit]

Immediately after you blocked 62.30.168.154 for six hours, 80.195.252.144 began making the same vandalism edits to 7's talk page. Looks too big for a rangeblock, but consider hitting both IP's with hard time. I'll let you know if I see any more IP's attack 7. Sven Manguard _Talk 04:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: 80.195.252.144 was just blocked for 31 hours. I'll keep you in the loop if I see anything else. Sven Manguard _Talk 04:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: Nevermind, 7 just upped his user talk to edit=autoconfirmed. Have a good day. Sven Manguard _Talk 04:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Friday the 13th[edit]

If you would be so kind, would you add the review of Friday the 13th for the NES from EGM #2 here? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 09:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

blpprod[edit]

Hi MuZemike I have replied on my talk page but thought I would further expand on my reasoning here. A quick look at the articles shows that the two articles were on 17yr footballers, that raised alarm bells straight away as not many players of that age are notable enough to require an article here. I could have placed a speedy tag on both of them as what was in the article at the time I placed the prods was enough to show that they didn't meet notability requirements as both of them said that they hadn't made apperances for the clubs that they are now signed to. By placing the blpprod IMO it give the creator the spur to look for sources to back up the article. It states in the notification that the creator gets If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article so I dont see that as biting or scaring away the newbies. And a very quick look shows that they are in fact academy players and as such non notable. So I will AfD them now.Mo ainm ~Talk 18:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedian WikiElves[edit]

Perhaps you can help on this. User:VegaDark deleted Category:Wikipedian WikiElves per G4 as "recreation of previously deleted content" (see here), even though it currently has 78 persons listed in the category. The conversation has turned into a pissing match with VegaDark saying in not so many words "you're wrong, I'm right" and "I have been here longer". I have, I will admit, called him a "WP:DICK" and "cocky" and his behavior "egotistic". I really don't appreciate his attitude and his way of discussing things like I am a completely idiot who doesn't know what I am talking about. Could you have a look at the discussion and step in and cool things down? Thanks...Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Abhjiutyf[edit]

Hello, MuZemike;

You're too fast – I'd barely gotten that report submitted when you blocked him! Thank you! J. Spencer (talk) 03:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huggle[edit]

Helpme. I'm now a rollbacker, I have downloaded huggle, but it comes up saying:

Huggle is not yet enabled for your account, check user configuration page.

I can't see anything about huggle on my preferences, so can you help? Special Cases ^{Spit out your confessions,vandal} 17:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to go to this page, edit it, put in

enable:true

then save it. That will enable it for your account. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 17:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CHMA-FM[edit]

Could you close the above AfD as a SNOW keep and withdraw, please? Thanks...Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Sir. Much appreciated. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Faerie Solitaire and Flip's Twisted World[edit]

Hi MuZemike, can you close the above articles both as snow keep / withdrawn if you get the chance? Thanks! -Addionne (talk) 16:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll close Faerie Solitaire, but Flip's Twisted World does have some other "delete" arguments, so I have to let that one run. –MuZemike 16:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks for your help. -Addionne (talk) 16:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Block of Megaidler[edit]

This was a lousy block. As far as I know, the guy only edited the Yom Kippur War and related topics. Did you even do a CU?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 23:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read the block log. I blocked the user off behavioral evidence. This was before I was a CU. –MuZemike 23:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, I still stand by the block. Compare his latest unblock request [39] with [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], and [47]. Or am I to believe everybody posts talk page requests in choppy paragraphs like that? If you still disagree, then please take the issue to WP:AN. –MuZemike 23:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Megaidler is alleged to be a sock of Golan heights is our, who is alleged to be a sock Dajudem, who is alleged to be a sock of stellarkid. Dajudem and stellarkid’s writing styles differ markedly from Megaidler. It is evident that Megaidler is not a native English speaker whereas Dajudem and stellarkid write quite well. That aside, Megaidler’s last substantive edit occurred on 6 August 2010. Since that period, Megaidler’s account has since been inactive with no contributions. Socks are created to circumvent a block, ban, 1R or 3R restriction. Even if Megaidler created another account, (which I don’t believe he has) how has he violated any Wikipedia rule? To my knowledge, Wikipedia does not disallow creation of a second account provided that that second account does not have a nefarious purpose. In what malevolent way has Megaidler abused multiple accounts? In what way has Megaidler used or abused a second account to circumvent a ban, block, 1R or 3R restriction? I urge you to consider these arguments and to reconsider or at least review your block.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He evaded a block, plain and simple; you cannot invoke WP:CLEANSTART to justify a block evasion. I do not understand what else needs to be looked at here. –MuZemike 02:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only block I see on his history is yours[48]. Please tell me how he used another account to evade a block?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Megaidler was blocked as a sock of User:Golan heights is our, who was blocked as a sock of banned user User:Dajudem. That was what I meant, if I wasn't clear enough. –MuZemike 02:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MuZemike, I think what Jiujitsuguy is trying to say is that Golan heights is our does not look to be a sock of Dajudem, based on the style of writing of each user. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Megaidler and User:Dajudem have completely different writing styles. Megaidler can barely put a grammatically correct sentence together whereas User:Dajudem displays strong command of the English language. Moreover, User:Megaidler focused nearly all of his edits on the Yom Kippur war whereas the record is devoid of User:Dajudem making any contributions to that specific topic area. These are clearly two different people--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eagles247, I did not block User:Golan heights is our, or am I now responsible for that account now as indicated? It is unreasonable to demand that an admin double-check every previous sock and make sure they are before blocking a new sock. By the way, thanks for letting me know now about this, just as the User:Golan heights is our account became completely stale so that CUs cannot possibly make any new comparisons.

Jiujitsuguy, I still disagree as they do share similar choppy writing styles. Again, please request a review of my block at the administrators' noticeboard if you wish; I am not going to unblock at this point. Regards, –MuZemike 02:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MuZemike, do me just one favor. Just compare the last substantive edit made by User:Dajudem with the choppy, poorly written writings of User:Megaidler. That is all I'm asking.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think what is going on here, as Eagles247 said, is that User:Golan heights is our is probably not a sock of User:Dajudem. Because the relation between User:Golan heights is our and User:Megaidler is clear at least to me. –MuZemike 02:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've invited the admin who blocked User:Golan heights is our to comment here regarding that block to see if we can make some headway here. –MuZemike 02:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you MuZe. That is an excellent idea. I have already commented on his page. Hopefully, he will respond and we can get to the bottom of this in a fair and equitable manner.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict × 2) I have pieced this thing together. 87.68.213.255 edited Golan Heights (here). Another user reverted him, then 87.68.213.255 came back as 84.228.155.248 and reverted the other user. (here). User:Nableezy came over and reverted this IP, calling him a "block evading troll" (here), even though the previous IP address was never blocked. 84.228.155.248 was then blocked for 48 hours by User:Malik Shabazz. While blocked, he posted a few unblock requests, then created an account (User:Golan heights is our) and posted another unblock request on the IP talk page. Golan heights is our was blocked indefinitely for block evasion, then Golan heights is not occupied was created and also indefinitely blocked for block evasion. Golan heights is our, Golan heights is not occupied and User:Megaidler are all the same user, but not banned user Dajudem. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Eagles247, for your detective work. I had just finished the same analysis. I blocked Golan heights is our as a sock of a blocked IP. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That offers some clarification but why is Megaidler lumped in when his interests are primarily focused on the Yom Kippur war and he never exhibited any sock tendencies there despite heated exchanges and relentless reverts by all concerned. One would think that he would have exhibited similar behavior in the Yom Kippur war, where he edited much more frequently. He makes a couple of edits to the Golan Heights and suddenly resorts to socking? It just doesn't make sense--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to Yom Kippur War, "Egypt and Syria crossed ceasefire lines to enter the Israeli-held Sinai Peninsula and Golan Heights respectively, which had been captured and occupied since the 1967 Six-Day War." Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is at best, a tangential relationship between the articles but Megaidler's edits there were focused mainly on statistical data such as casualties, aircraft losses, tank losses etc... See for example[49]. Megaidler is a dry statistics guy and nothing more. It really is a shame if the wrong guy was blocked and I think that is precisely what happened here.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you look at the writing styles of User:Golan heights is our ([50]) and User:Megaidler ([51]), it seems like they are the same user, due to the random breaks in lines. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If Megaidler is not a sock of banned user Dajudem, then by MuZemike's own reasoning, there is no reason to permanently block him. See [52]. MuZemike said he blocked Megaider because he thought he was Dajudem but that reasoning no longer holds true based on what Malik said. I think that based on that comment, Megaidar's block should be lifted forthwith.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? The CU said Megaidler and Golan heights is our, had: "Same geographic area, different network fingerprints." and another CU said likely that Stellarkid = Golan heights is our. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He still evaded blocks though. He is still a sockpuppet of blocked users Golan heights is our and Golan heights is not occupied. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He is not a sock of anyone. He could have edited under his own account without any problem. He didn't have to create new accounts to edit. His account was in good standing. But that is beside the point. MuZemike said he blocked him because he thought he was a sock of banned User:Dajudem[[53]] and that has proven not to be the case[54]. I would like to get MuZemike's perspective on this.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a CU connection ("likely") between Golan heights is our (talk · contribs) and Stellarkid (talk · contribs) (who is blocked as a sock of Dajudem), see here. If Megaidler (talk · contribs) is the same as Golan heights is our (talk · contribs) it follows the user is a sock of Dajudem. I personally doubt that Megaidler is the same as the other users, but I dont have a CU bit. Simple answer here is to run a CU against Megaidler instead of blocking based on WP:DUCK. A comparison could then be made against Stellarkid (whose edits on commons could be checked to compare with by a a CU here who has the bit there as well) or with the other socks. nableezy - 03:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Nableezy points out, there is enough doubt here to run a CU. Second my original point still stands. MuZemike said he blocked Megaider because he thought he was a sock of banned User:Dajudem[[55]] and as Malik stated, that has proven not to be the case[56]. At the very least, the block against Megaider should be temporarily lifted while a CU is performed. I would also like to thank Nableezy for putting aside our differences and placing Wikipedia's interests and the interests of fairness first.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It actually has been proven that Golan heights is our is a sock of a banned editor, see the diff I provided above. I have my own reasons for doubting that Golan heights is our=Megaidler, but Golan heights is our=Stellarkid=Dajudem has been established by CU. If Megaidler=Golan heights is our, as the user is blocked for being, then Megaidler=the rest. But I dont think the line breaks are enough to block based on WP:DUCK, and I dont think the behavioral evidence at the SPI is enough. nableezy - 04:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is what Malik had to say about his block of User:Golan heights is our As I've explained at User talk:MuZemike, I blocked Golan heights is our as a sock of a blocked IP. Supreme Deliciousness added the banner that says Golan is a sock of Dajudem. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[57] That statement speaks for itself. Regardless, I agree that a CU should be performed on Megaidler and while that is pending, his block should be temporarily lifted. There is no harm in doing so and no one is prejudiced by such action.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Malik Shabazz blocked Golan heights is our prior to the CU establishing the user was connected to Stellarkid. But it has since been established (at least "likely") that Golan heights is our is the same user as Stellarkid. SD then, after the CU finding, added the sock tag on the userpage. The important thing here is whether or not Megaidler is the same user as Golan heights is our; if they are the same user, as the user is currently blocked for, then thats the end of the story. The argument you are making, that even if Megaidler also operated the Golan heights is our account the user is not a sock of a banned editor, is false. You need to focus on showing that Megaidler is not the same as Golan heights is our. If you would like more advice on how to proceed you can politely ask me on my talk page. nableezy - 04:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As per my discussion with Nableezy on his Talk page [58], the best course of action would be to run a CU on User:Megaidler. I also believe, as I have stated before, that his block should be temporarily lifted pending the outcome of the CU. No one is prejudiced by doing so--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 06:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I thought Megaidler was Golan heights is our is because the Megaidler account said that IP comments were from him:[59], these IP posts were identical to the posts of Golan heights is our, Golan heights is not occupied and Improvisealot123. Posts from the Megaidler account are also similar to Golan heights is our:[60][[61]] There has already been a CU for Megaidler:[62] "Same geographic area, different network fingerprints.". The other accounts are confirmed or likely: [63]"Confirmed Improvisealot123 = FLWalker = user:Stellarkid (note: tagged as related to user:Dajudem & user:Tundrabuggy but I'm not familiar with that), and Likely that user:Golan heights is our = user:Golan heights is not occupied and that they are the same as Stellarkid, but I've run out of pixie dust." So Stellarkid = Golan heights is our = Golan heights is not occupied = Likely, and Megaidler = Golan heights is our = "Same geographic area, different network fingerprints.", and this is only the CU, not considering the behavior. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MuZemike, I think that there is a fair degree of uncertainty here to justify a shortening, or full reversal of the block. The ball is now in your court. I really don't want to take this to WP:AN because, well, I'll admit that I'm a lazy SOB and pressed for time in the real world and I don't have much of a vested interest either way. I just think the poor fella got a bum rap--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still looking at this, but I need to remind everyone that all previous accounts are now Stale, which I mentioned yesterday; CU will not be able to go back that far and determine via technical evidence that socking has occurred. –MuZemike 22:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MuZemike you may recall this conversation between you and I:

Megaidler is alleged to be a sock of Golan heights is our, who is alleged to be a sock Dajudem, who is alleged to be a sock of stellarkid. Dajudem and stellarkid’s writing styles differ markedly from Megaidler. It is evident that Megaidler is not a native English speaker whereas Dajudem and stellarkid write quite well. That aside, Megaidler’s last substantive edit occurred on 6 August 2010. Since that period, Megaidler’s account has since been inactive with no contributions. Socks are created to circumvent a block, ban, 1R or 3R restriction. Even if Megaidler created another account, (which I don’t believe he has) how has he violated any Wikipedia rule? To my knowledge, Wikipedia does not disallow creation of a second account provided that that second account does not have a nefarious purpose. In what malevolent way has Megaidler abused multiple accounts? In what way has Megaidler used or abused a second account to circumvent a ban, block, 1R or 3R restriction? I urge you to consider these arguments and to reconsider or at least review your block.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He evaded a block, plain and simple; you cannot invoke WP:CLEANSTART to justify a block evasion. I do not understand what else needs to be looked at here. –MuZemike 02:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only block I see on his history is yours[64]. Please tell me how he used another account to evade a block?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User:Megaidler was blocked as a sock of User:Golan heights is our, who was blocked as a sock of banned user User:Dajudem. That was what I meant, if I wasn't clear enough. –MuZemike 02:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, you were under the wrong impression that Malik blocked User:Megaidler as a sock of Golan heights is our who in turn was a sock of banned user User:Dajudem. Malik has now clarified that is not the case as evidenced below:

This is what Malik had to say about his block of User:Golan heights is our

As I've explained at User talk:MuZemike, I blocked Golan heights is our as a sock of a blocked IP. Supreme Deliciousness added the banner that says Golan is a sock of Dajudem. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[65] That statement speaks for itself.[reply]

In light of this, will you consider reversing your decision against Megaidler? Or at least shorten his block to time served?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I went ahead and unblocked, given the recommendations and views of several others. It doesn't look like we were very sure about the block even back then. –MuZemike 01:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you MuZemike. Can you please notify him on his Talk page so he's aware of his unblock. Thanks again for your patience and taking the time to review the case--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand[edit]

As per your comments on Bsadowski1's talk page:

Jack Sebastian, would you appreciate it if somebody attempted to make a public connection as to where you live via a connection to an IP address you may have used? Because that is what you are asking, and neither I nor any CU will not do that let alone publicly disclose such CU results on-wiki as that is tantamount to outing someone. –MuZemike 22:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I wouldn't appreciate that, but that isn't what I was seeking to do, and I am flabbergasted that you (or others, apparently) would even consider that I was seeking to do so.

The definition of disruptive sockpuppetry is using another account to support another of your accounts. When I noticed an IP address supporting the viewpoint of a registered user, I didn't cry foul and run full-tilt to RfCU; I went to their page and asked them if they indeed had simply failed to log in or whatnot. They said it wasn't them, not once but twice. Now, good faith is a great guideline, but two editors from within 35 miles of each other backing each others' play shouldn't get overlooked simply because you wish it not to be sockpuppetry.

Since the user said the IP edits weren't theirs, how was I seeking to connect them publicly? If the user was telling the truth, no connection would be found. If the user being untruthful, then the only way to verify the socking is via RfCU. Tell me how I am wrong here, bc I seriously don't know why you are considering my viewpoint to be wrong. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since Bsadowski seems uninterested in helping me understand, maybe you could. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you have to possibly gain from persisting all of this? It seems like you are trying to get somebody blocked punitively (yes, such a block would be punitive, not preventative). And now you come back 3 weeks later and pushing the same issue? You seem to be acting more on principle than what the reality of the situation is. Let it go, please. –MuZemike 16:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Focus, please; this isn't about any user - at all. I am stating that I am unclear as to the idea of checkuser as it pertains to sockpuppetry. I repeat again, as people seem to keep missing this bit: I am not pursuing anyone with this line of inquiry. I am asking where we draw the line at editing from multiple accounts. The user says the account wasn't theirs. Therefore, doing a checkuser would have either explosed no connection whatsoever, or would have exposed the user as a liar. What is the litmus for conducting checkuser - that's my question here. I am seeking some knowledge, not retribution.

And lastly, the reason I am here three weeks later is that I was polite enough to wait for Bsadowski to get off his rump to write a reply. I figured I had waited enough time for a response and asked someone else.- Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

check the redirects, please[edit]

You forgot to check the redirects when you moved National Public Radio to NPR. I just now fixed one for you. Would you please check for more problems? Tks • Ling.Nut 02:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that. Doesn't look like there is anything else when looking at Special:WhatLinksHere].

I do apologize for that move. I should have exercised some more hindsight, knowing that this was a rather major naming change (why "NPR" decided to do this to themselves, I don't know). –MuZemike 05:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rbj hardblock[edit]

Hardblocked sounds as if it might be something that works. If so, many thanks, pardon my earlier scepticism and - can you direct me to info about what a hardblock means? Thanks McZeus (talk) 06:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Setting block options says it all. Basically, nobody can edit from that IP address. –MuZemike 15:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI/TreasuryTag[edit]

I think it's prejudicial to the discussion to have the subpage called "TreasuryTag", when as much, or more, of the discussion deals with my actions as it does with his. Might I suggest moving it to "TreasuryTag and SarekOfVulcan", or "TreasuryTag civility block"?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was kind of thinking the same when I moved it. What about simply "block of TreasuryTag"? –MuZemike 17:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Block of TreasuryTag without redirect. –MuZemike 17:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks reasonable. Thanks! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q3 2010[edit]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 3, No. 2 — 3rd Quarter, 2010
Previous issue | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q3 2010, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation

VG Project Main pages
- Main project – talk
- Project category – talk
- Portal – talk
VG Project Departments
- Assessment – talk
- Cleanup – talk
- Peer review – talk
- Reference library – talk
- Newsletter – talk
- Video game images – talk

To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 18:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Loooong block[edit]

Hello MuZemike--do you mind explaining the long block for 66.56.82.93, or the special circumstances for it? I remember what they wrote; no need to repeat that. ;) Drmies (talk) 07:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's on open proxy; normally we don't block indef, even for OPs. –MuZemike 07:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...or should I explain in the block rationale of that? –MuZemike 07:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No no, not at all--I was wondering what was so bad about it; I've seen worse, I think, though not on a weekly basis. Was it the amount of obscenity, or does 'open proxy' also mean that there's more to this than meets the eye? Let's just say that you just became a part-time possible future admin coach, if you don't mind! Thanks, Drmies (talk) 07:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to email you the answer to that one per WP:BEANS. –MuZemike 07:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, thanks! You know what, it's time to close up shop for tonight. Thanks again, also for blocking that gentle person so quickly, Drmies (talk) 07:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. I have some studying to do now, though I feel much too old to learn this new-fangled stuff. Drmies (talk) 18:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

question[edit]

Would you mind checkusering the user who posted this suicide threat? Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 23:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's being taken care of. Thanks. –MuZemike 23:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible NPA, your help needed fairly quickly please[edit]

Hi. As far as I know we have never interacted in any significant manner. You are the last admin edit that I currently see on my watchlist.

User:Xanderliptak has made a blatant personal attack here. I have asked him twice to redact it, he has not. Lest this be seen as favouritism in any way, please note I have also asked Fry1989 to redact the personal attacks he made against Xanderliptak.

Please intervene. Thanks. → ROUX ₪ 00:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I already explained to ROUX that it was not a personal attack, but a comment on his actions. Paranoia is the "baseless or excessive suspicion of the motives of others" and he is making an RfC off of fears of what might happen based on nothing but his personal feelings towards me. That is preemptive, baseless and paranoid, to be worried about what might be instead of what was. A personal attack would be calling someone insane, or crazy, or a liar or the other slew of things ROUX seemed to have forgotten to mention were said of me by editors. I suppose that it would not help his cause to point out what was said against me, though. [talk] XANDERLIPTAK 01:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am honestly flabbergasted at this point. How on earth did you not see, directly above, "Lest this be seen as favouritism in any way, please note I have also asked Fry1989 to redact the personal attacks he made against Xanderliptak." ????????????????????????????????? → ROUX ₪ 01:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the rabbit is still in the garden[edit]

Hi again! I don't know how long it takes hardblocks to work but judging by this, Rbj was editing as recently as 25Oct 17.43. McZeus (talk) 23:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I gave the IP a 1-week block for evasion and disruption. However, he is IP-hopping all over the place and is editing different articles every time; at this pace, he can keep this up for quite a while. –MuZemike 23:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please review this block?[edit]

Hi MuZemike, can you please review this (and the related block) [[66]]. If discussion about your review is not appropriate here, please feel free to email me. Thanks, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 20:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go ahead and unblock. I just want to make sure he's OK, which looks like he is from looking at his talk page. –MuZemike 21:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Much thanks for your quick attention to this. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 21:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Committee Elections Coordinators[edit]

Are you interested in joining the club? I think we could use you, and considering how much effort you have already put in, and your readily apparent high level of Clue, this invite seems like a no brainer to me. Sven Manguard _Talk 06:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ZeroInAMillion[edit]

That seemed like an obvious duck of OneInAMillion96, unless it's that false flag vandal... Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 06:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siren (magazine)[edit]

This AfD seems to have been closed (by you)[67] and relisted (by Cirt)[68] more or less simultaneously. The result is that there are now contradictory instructions on the page that may dissuade further input--assuming such is appropriate. I wanted to call this to your attention for whatever remedial action you think appropriate. Best,--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me talk with Cirt about that. I mean, with another "delete" !vote snuk in there, the situation is not as clear. In fairness, I would initially recommend letting the relist continue for another 7 days, but we'll work something out. –MuZemike 07:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree (although I also thought your close was eminently reasonable). Thank you. --Arxiloxos (talk) 07:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whpq[edit]

Hi there; this user appears to be autoblocked as a reult of a block of yours, and claims collateral damage. He has been a good editor for over four years, and I suspect his claim is reasonable; would you take a look, please? --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I lifted the autoblock; it was a result of a {{UsernameHardBlocked}} I did earlier and not any CU block or anything. –MuZemike 21:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Schoolcraft[edit]

Mein gott, that was quick. Had someone else also said they thought he was Todd's sock? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scruffy Is Back[edit]

Time to reactivate filter 361... Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 05:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seriously think I didn't notice? –MuZemike 05:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Collateral/IPBE check[edit]

Hi MuZemike. I've hardblocked 96.5.63.20 (talk · contribs · block log). It's looks like a fairly busy caching proxy to me, with the possibility of constructive users on it, so I wondered if a checkuser could have a look around and dole out any necessary IPBE. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ACC Tool[edit]

Someone, probably you, requested access to the account creation tool. For security purposes could you please confirm that it was you who made the request so we can approve you, thanks. -- DQ (t) (e) 14:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was me. Thanks for asking. –MuZemike 15:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

S.S. Miami/It's Always Stormy in Transylvania[edit]

Could you actually restore it so I could get the information?

--S.S. Miami (talk) 18:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Starzynka[edit]

Just curious, what is/are this user's sock(s), or who was his sockmaster? I notice that you've not made any other blocks today related to Starzynka. Nyttend (talk) 20:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wish not to disclose the sockmaster at this time; as I said at WP:AN, I handled it privately with the user, and I received assurance that this would not happen again. I feel that this will not be a problem in the future, and this was why I chose to handle it in this fashion. –MuZemike 20:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I missed the handled-it-privately bit. Nyttend (talk) 21:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine; don't worry about it. –MuZemike 21:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN and Starzynka[edit]

I see you put the Starzynka discussion into a collapse box. Nyttend has been editing the discussion. Is that allowed? — Fly by Night (talk) 20:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Argh, if you folks still wish to argue about it, then you folks might as well remove the collapsing. I won't stand in the way of that. –MuZemike 20:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please relax. I'm not interested in arguing anything out. I was just wondering about the policy. The template says that the discussion is closed and that it should not be modified; yet people are modifying the discussion. A series of edits could change the meaning of the discussion. — Fly by Night (talk) 20:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, FWIW, that didn't change much at all. Hence, no harm has really been done, regardless of what the guidelines say about closing discussions. –MuZemike 20:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a link at hand, so I could read up on the policy? I'd appreciate the chance to increase my knowledge. — Fly by Night (talk) 20:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Closing discussions is a page that discusses this, but it's only an information page and doesn't have any "meat" behind it. –MuZemike 20:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's plenty for a novice like me to get his teeth into. Thanks a lot. — Fly by Night (talk) 20:38, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

rangeblock needed please[edit]

Аватарфильм (talk · contribs), who presumably was previously 109.91.187.162 (talk · contribs) and 99.251.211.225 (talk · contribs) is edit warring at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science to keep a troll question on the page. See also Джеймс Кэмерон (talk · contribs), Зои Салдана (talk · contribs), Аватара (talk · contribs), and Остановить (talk · contribs). Need a rangeblock to stop this nonsense, if you would be so kind. Ta. → ROUX ₪ 20:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but he's gone OP on us. –MuZemike 20:44, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, they're normally Tor with this user. Please don't do 5 year blocks for Tor, it only causes collateral. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll trust your judgment on that one and reduced the lengths of the blocks appropriately. –MuZemike 21:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll revisit them again in the future. This user is quite a long term regular at the ref desks. If you see anyone mention troll and it's an IP, it's almost certainly this user and worth checking for Tor. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know I've blocked a lot of User:Light current socks a little while back; I can't recall if he operates in the same fashion, though. –MuZemike 22:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request of 208.76.104.144[edit]

Hello MuZemike. 208.76.104.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards, jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notice[edit]

Since you are involved in the recent abuse of Tor, you may be interested in this ongoing bot approval request. Regards, Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hippety hop here too[edit]

And now here McZeus (talk) 01:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC) And here McZeus (talk) 01:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser block[edit]

Please review User talk:Leodj1992. Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I am not comfortable at all in lifting a block on a highly abusive range, I have granted the user IPBE. –MuZemike 02:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2010 October newsletter[edit]

The 2010 WikiCup is over! It has been a long journey, but what has been achieved is impressive: combined, participants have produced over seventy featured articles, over five hundred good articles, over fifty featured lists, over one thousand one hundred "did you know" entries, in addition to various other pieces of recognised content. A full list (which has yet to be updated to reflect the scores in the final round) can be found here. Perhaps more importantly, we have our winner! The 2010 WikiCup champion is Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), with an unbelievable 4220 points in the final round. Second place goes to TonyTheTiger (submissions), with 2260, and third to Casliber (submissions), with 560. Congratulations to our other four finalists – White Shadows (submissions), William S. Saturn (submissions), Staxringold (submissions) and ThinkBlue (submissions). Also, congratulations to Sasata (submissions), who withdrew from the competition with an impressive 2685 points earlier in this round.

Prizes will also be going to those who claimed the most points for different types of content in a single round. It was decided that the prizes would be awarded for those with the highest in a round, rather than overall, so that the finalists did not have an unfair advantage. Winning the featured article prize is Casliber (submissions), for five featured articles in round 4. Winning the good article prize is Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), for eighty-one good articles in round 5. Winning the featured list prize is Staxringold (submissions), for six featured lists in round 1. Winning the picture and sound award is Jujutacular (submissions), for four featured pictures in round 3. Winning the topic award is Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), for forty-seven articles in various good topics in round 5. Winning the "did you know" award is TonyTheTiger (submissions), for over one hundred did you knows is round 5. Finally, winning the in the news award is Candlewicke (submissions), for nineteen articles in the news in round three.

The WikiCup has faced criticism in the last month – hopefully, we will take something positive from it and create a better contest for next year. Like Wikipedia itself, the Cup is a work in progress, and ideas for how it should work are more than welcome on the WikiCup talk page and on the scoring talk page. Also, people are more than welcome to sign up for next year's competition on the signup page. Well done and thank you to everyone involved – the Cup has been a pleasure to run, and we, as judges, have been proud to be a part of it. We hope that next year, however the Cup is working, and whoever is running it, it will be back, stronger and more popular than ever. Until then, goodbye and happy editing! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 03:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung99[edit]

Hi. I would just like to thank you most warmly for the part you played in resolving the Kudpung99/ShyGuy fiasco. I had been aware of part of the problem for quite a while but don't have the tools to take any serious action, and I wasn't sure if the name similarity, although it was deliberate, would have been enough to start the ball rolling. The real Kudpung (talk) 04:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. If you need to, you can ask a bureaucrat to rename that account out of the way somewhere if you desire. –MuZemike 04:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2010 Ribbon of Participation[edit]

		The WikiCup 2010 Ribbon of Participation
		Awarded to MuZemike, for participation in the 2010 WikiCup. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 08:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly mistaken use of Revision Deletion[edit]

Can you please explain the reason for this action? I see nothing wrong wit this deletion log entry - it's made up of an IP address and automatic system messages of Wikipedia. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I see what I did there. It's possible I nabbed the block log along with the IP's edits, which clearly needed to be RevDeleted. –MuZemike 09:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll clarify that I probably have erred on the block log entry, but I have not with regards to the deletion log entries that I RevDeleted, but I think you can clearly see why there. –MuZemike 09:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please nuke[edit]

Per WP:CRD [69] — goethean ॐ 15:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Galaxian 2[edit]

On 1 November 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Galaxian 2, which you recently nominated. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 18:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Starzynka loose end[edit]

As you can imagine, there are lots of stubs created by User:Starzynka that will get noticed by other editors in due course—I've just come from an AfD for one of them. Would you consider putting some sort of sockpuppet message on Starzynka's user and talk pages and then fully protecting them? It would probably help avoid confusion and reduce frustration in the long term. Thanks - Pointillist (talk) 18:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a sockblock template to the user talk page, but I wish to leave it at that. I don't see much a reason to full-protect here unless we have problems with vandalism, which I don't forsee. –MuZemike 23:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - Pointillist (talk) 23:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IP block requested[edit]

Hi, MuZemike. I saw you blocked IP User_talk:71.168.230.63 ten days ago for vandalism. Would you please re-block, for this new vandalism that user Muboshgu warned about on the IP's talk? I agree with the sentiment, btw, but I detest the vandalism of any article, particularly a candidate's article on the eve of an election. Thanks, and my very cordial thanks, more generally, for your ongoing and extraordinary contributions to the encyclopedia. Best regards, – OhioStandard (talk) 05:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked 2 months. Thank you for letting me know. –MuZemike 06:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have also RevisionDeleted the edit in question as patent libel. We need to let the polls, not Wikipedia, determine the outcome of the elections that will shortly go on here in the U.S. –MuZemike 06:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, and thanks for this quick action. You're the best! – OhioStandard (talk) 06:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Invite to become a Coordinator[edit]

You should consider becoming a coordinator for the elections (unless you have an intention of running for the elections.) You seem to be doing a lot of good work at the RfC anyways. The link is Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Coordination. Sven Manguard _Talk 23:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Transhumanist[edit]

This long-serving editor appears to be caught in an autoblock, applied to an IP which is registered to Seattle Public Library. I am quite certain he is not a vandal; are you happy for me to unblock him? --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 18:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just lifted his two autoblocks; I thought I got that a day ago when I blocked another user for disruption, unless something is acting up. –MuZemike 18:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I sense a disturbance in the Wiki... (request)[edit]

Though I might be jumping at shadows, I noticed that after this matter, I started getting anons placing 'welcome' templates on my Usertalk (1, 2) having no obvious geographic similarity. It's not really a bother or anything; just odd - I didn't even get a welcome template when I started my account, and here I am, 1600 edits in and I'm getting two of them. It might be a warm-up to something else.
From anons. Could I ask you to semi-protect my pages for a few days or so? If I am to understand correctly, it means that newer users won't be able to post, but I'm kinda hoping that whoever's pranking me gets bored and finds something shiny to play with. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I semi-protected for 24 hours. What I would recommend is to create a subpage of your talk page for non-confirmed users, like with what I have. Legitimate IPs need some place to discuss stuff with you for something. –MuZemike 02:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, done. I guess I was right about the anons.Do you think its a single person spoofing other sites?

Leodj1992[edit]

Thanks for unblocking my account, to be honest I felt kind of angry when I saw that my range was blocked, as you might guess I have a dynamic IP and it's so annoying that I can't do anything about it... Well now I'm free again to edit and contribute to Wikipedia so thanks a lot! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leodj1992 (talk • contribs) 05:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ohlly[edit]

Thanks for the quick CU return. Sorry about the page misnaming. I swear when I went to create InkHeart it told me I was editing a protected page, so I changed it to Inkheart. Oh well. Syrthiss (talk) 17:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppet[edit]

Dear Sir:

I am not creating a sockpuppet. I was on wikipedia last year but after a prolonged absence where I was living in Bolivia I didn't use Wikipedia. I couldn't remember my original account when I got back to the US and A so I created a new one, Bunkerdiver. Then I remembered my password oringally and logged onto that. Why are you prying into my privaxy and IPs anyway? Who are you and what gives you that right? Carolyn Baker III (talk) 01:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because when somebody goes right into conversations about transformers-related articles, right to where everything is happening, there is a certain cause for suspicion. –MuZemike 01:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet is back again[edit]

Just to let you know, 71.63.111.177 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (Freakee73) appears to be back to his old antics again. (Or, at least, trying to be. He's only made one edit so far.) Let me know if I should relist him again. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 04:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would just say revert for now, if that hasn't been done already. If this user is on dynamic IPs, then blocking will not do any good. Keep in mind that all his other socks are stale for CU purposes, though we do have this one edit which might tell us something in the future. –MuZemike 05:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, already reverted. But I don't know how dynamic these IPs actually are if he's been able to use the same IP for three separate incidents. We'll have to see how zealous he gets; I'm anticipating a revert war. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 07:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete[edit]

Hello, MuZemike! Just to let you know that page you deleted was nominated again after merger we done. just to let you know. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 10:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by thank you! :)[edit]

MuZemike has been inducted into the Order of the Mop,
for their hard work and dedication and is entitled to display
this award for being such a great admin,
Kind regards and happy editing,
—Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 9:34pm • • 10:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For a userbox version go here.
You are member number: 36

You're hard work in the first months of your "CheckUsership" is proof of your hard work and dedication to making Wikipedia better for the rest of us :) —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 9:34pm • 10:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help please[edit]

Hi there, MIKE, VASCO from Portugal here,

i sent this message to former administrator NuclearWarfare, and he kindly redirected me here. Can you, upon reading the message, do something about the two queries i bring forth (please see original message here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NuclearWarfare#Assistance_needed)?

I will now elaborate on what needs to be elaborated, so you have a better glimpse on why i ask you what i do. Item #2 is pretty much self-explanatory (asking for page protection because the vandals are "afoot"), but here's some stuff about the "user" discussed in item #1: this chap has more than 50 socks (yes 50! please see here for more details http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pararubbas/Archive), plus a seemingly never-ending supply of anon addresses. Also he writes no summaries and, even though he edits from England, his English is appalling, at best.

The only time i saw him interact with anyone was in this message to former admin/user - has retired from both - Satori Son, when he had the nerve to ask why was his "work" being deleted (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Satori_Son#Deleted_pages). As you can see there, after i tipped off Nuclear Warfare, he dropped a note there, asking for this user not to create any more accounts. Obviously, he did not follow that suggestion, AT ALL, and continues.

Attentively, thank you very much in advance - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 22:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the following query has already been replied, what did i do wrong in my message to fail to deserve one single word in feedback? I think nothing, Mike, could you at least please tell me what can i do/with whom can i talk? Sorry to have bothered you. - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 04:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lkjuiop890 is Confirmed by CheckUser and has been indefinitely blocked. Sorry I didn't get back earlier on that request. –MuZemike 04:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a million, even though i have the solid feeling this person won't stop, unless he wants to do so (one account after the other, and so on and so on...sad indeed). Cheers! - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 04:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Atari 2600 homebrew[edit]

Hi MuZemike. Thanks for taking the time to do the GA review of Atari 2600 homebrew. I'm disappointed in the result, of course, but I appreciate your detailed feedback and will tackle the issues you brought up. No hard feelings on the Juno image deletion; I understand the rationale there. Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 03:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Take your time on the improvements and re-nominate when the whole lot gets addressed. –MuZemike 03:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. And another thank you for all the additional sources you found. I look forward to digging into those and fleshing out the article more. 28bytes (talk) 03:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sock case Cmmmm[edit]

I listed two IPs at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cmmmm. Those were edits from recently = October 2010. Those edits as compared to the sock, should not be stale, yes? -- Cirt (talk) 12:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided a lot of additional IPs to check against the recent sock. Both for locale info, as well as other technical info. It appears this particular sockmaster has been POV pushing and disrupting portal pages, literally, for years. -- Cirt (talk) 13:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)(edit conflict) Sorry to intrude... What you say is true, Cirt (to an extent, IPs never go stale). However, per the checkuser and privacy polices, linking accounts to IPs is not recommended, which may be why Mike has not done so in this case. Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 13:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not used to this editor at all; I don't what to look for or anything (as far as user agents, IPs, etc. are involved). With everything being stale, CU cannot do terribly much here, at least from my standpoint. –MuZemike 14:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I would be able to find out whether or not IP ranges are editing the same way or whether or not that one account is in those ranges (however, I would not be able to disclose that), but I cannot possibly link any connection to the sockmaster. –MuZemike 14:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, understood. I will await an admin to come by and review the strong behavioral evidence. No worries, -- Cirt (talk) 14:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I got involved in this minor mess and already weighed in at the appropriate locations. I have noticed in SPIs though that accounts go "Stale" rather often. How far back in time can you use Checkuser to link/track accounts. I ask because I occasionally submit SPIs, and this seems like something rather important to know ahead of time. Sven Manguard _Talk 15:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Nyleptha Roberts[edit]

The article Nyleptha Roberts has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Trivia, Fails WP:GNG, practically no reliable sources, WP:NOT

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. David in DC (talk) 16:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia in the New York Times[edit]

Greetings. Quiddity sent me a link to an article in the New York Times regarding Wikipedia, as well as some discussion threads from the Wikimedia mailing list regarding the NYT article. I'm the editor mentioned there, and I feel like she is being sincere in her interest. I can send you copies of her message to me, as well as my responses to her. I know it sounds kinda weird to go about discussing WP:OWN because someone claimed to write a passage that was quoted, but in case you didn't see the previous article that started all this, here it is. --McDoob AU 93 06:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, if you want to email me that, go ahead. Lucky you, you get good coverage, while all I get off-wiki is whiny criticism and trolling :) –MuZemike 23:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sent to ya via Wikipedia e-mail. --McDoob AU 93 03:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to being blocked[edit]

Well now that I'm back, I'll ask next time before I make any edits on the talk pages Robert Moore 18:37, 8 November 2010

I appreciate the honesty there. If you have a question about an edit, make sure to ask someone first or bring it up on the talk page. –MuZemike 21:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you're Justa Punk, are you?[edit]

Oooh, you are in so much trouble... HalfShadow

Yeah, I was so harassing myself via email because I had nothing better to do ... :) –MuZemike 00:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That'll teach you, huh? Way to stick it to the man! HalfShadow 00:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of interest...[edit]

A vandal, I think he wants you... Sven Manguard _Talk 23:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed, talk page protected. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on pooling together all the IPs he's used and then I can probably calculate a few narrow range blocks we could use instead of blocking /16ranges. Access Denied – talk to me 00:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wonder Boy in Monster Land GAN review[edit]

Wonder Boy in Monster Land is now in review at Talk:Wonder Boy in Monster Land/GA1. Just letting you know. --Teancum (talk) 13:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit filter[edit]

Why did you disable the Zsfgseg filters? --Access Denied – talk to me 02:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They're useless. Same with the rangeblocks, which was why I unblocked all of them. There is no way to stop this user, and it might be preferable to quit trying. –MuZemike 02:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Objection to deletion of a discussion[edit]

I'd like to object to the deletion of User:Barts1a/discussion1. I don't believe U1 applies here, it specifically excludes user talk pages. See Wikipedia:User_page#Deleting_your_user_talk_pages. That discussion contained "other significant contributors" such as myself, and I do not give my permission for my comments made there to be deleted. Deleting my comments violates the deletion policy, and the copyrights under which they were released. PS. It is Bart's right to unlink that archive from his talk page, or archive the discussion (as he did). What I believe he has no right to is to request that this deletion be blanked by an admin, without getting permission from all other participants. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored it and taken it to WP:MFD; see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Barts1a/discussion1. I have no opinion, and it seems there are other reasons for opposing the deletion in which I am not aware. The community, as well as you folks, can discuss it there. –MuZemike 04:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The comments made by all in the discussion are still visible in Archive 1 of my talk page Barts1a (talk) 04:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notice[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Zsfgseg: Narrow range blocks seem to be possible. Thank you. Access Denied – talk to me 05:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CUBlock[edit]

Can you take a look at this unblock request. Looks like they got autoblocked as part of a socker's range. Thanks, 7 07:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and softened that rangeblock; that user should be able to edit, now. –MuZemike 07:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Factocop, etc.[edit]

One editor not noticed for Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Maiden City/Archive was BritishWatcher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who at least appears to be connected with Blue is better (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as per this suspicious link:[70]. This is under discussion at WP:ANI. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MuZemike, could you possibly confirm that User:Clonbony was in fact a sock of Factocop as it is being discussed here and the Admin is not sure. Thanks in advance, regards, --Domer48_'fenian' 22:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are confirmed; see my response there. –MuZemike 22:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's grand, fair play. --Domer48_'fenian' 23:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's not clear to me is whether "Factocopy" is the same guy as Maiden City or not. It would be nice to clear that up for the record-keeping aspect of it, although it may not matter that much. Ironically, Facto had his talk page rights taken away, so if he's reacting to any of this, it's strictly off-wiki. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NotAGroup[edit]

Interesting development that nullifies the need for a CU. Acather96 (talk) 19:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I have some interesting CU results, and I will be posting them shortly once I finish. –MuZemike 19:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) I over-reacted anyway, ignore the diff :) Acather96 (talk) 19:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request[edit]

Hi there MIKE, VASCO here,

as requested in my original message, could you please protect Mágico González's page? The vandalism continues! Thank you in advance, keep up the good work - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 02:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked 76.171.11.0/24 for 1 month (every IP that has 76.171.11.* in front of it). Hopefully that takes care of stuff without semi-protecting. –MuZemike 03:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks man although, judging from the article's history, the "user" does seem to have more than one IP address :( . What do i conclude from your technical explanation? That the person won't be able to use the others as well? Cheers! - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 03:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mynamismik‎[edit]

Could you take a look at the recent edits, particularly the hockey ones from tonight, by Mynamismik‎? I pushed this to AIV, but Elen of the Roads claimed it wasn't vandalism. I feel it is and since she is new, she might not be seeing it. I feel the user is troll and nothing more. He is here for "fun" and not here to be constructive and some of the hockey edits tonight show that. Could you take a look? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked 1 week; I was about to press the block button as you gave that "final warning". He's had more than enough to justify a block of some sorts. –MuZemike 03:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mike...much appreciated. Not sure what brought that on. Acroterion and myself have been more than patient with him. I hope he calms down after this. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I thought I saw everything until I saw this. –MuZemike 07:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh it gets better, check this out. He admits retaliation. So, with that, what happens next? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He again admits here, just moments ago. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the only admin there, and believe me, he is very close to an indefinite block. –MuZemike 21:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okie Dokie, just was making you aware since you were the blocking admin, didn't know if you had to know what was going on or not to have a block change. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Freakee73 sockpuppets[edit]

Just to let you know, I've opened up another SPI on Freakee73 sockpuppets, including the one I mentioned to you a couple of days ago. Unfortunately, they are all IP addresses, originating in different countries, so it's gonna be hard to track them down and block them. But all three have made essentially the same reversion of my fully-sourced improvement to Video blogging. At this point, I have reached my 3-revert limit. I would have to ask that the article be protected again. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 22:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected 6 months for excessive socking. You're right, we don't need to play that game again. –MuZemike 22:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response! —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 22:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ping[edit]

Hi, I've emailed you. Tony (talk) 11:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't suppose there's a specific IP that can be dealt with?[edit]

Or are they all different? HalfShadow 00:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hardblocked the one IP, but that's it for now. The range he's on is a bit busy. –MuZemike 00:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crap; I didn't think it'd be that easy... HalfShadow 00:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AN[edit]

Please see WP:AN#Unblocking talk page creations. Thanks. Anomie ⚔ 16:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Logo Question[edit]

I think I know the answer to this one, but want to make sure. I couldn't use the File:Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.png logo in a userbox, could I? If not, could I use the File:Lutherrose.svg image since it is released CC/ASA 3.0 for the same reason? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just lighting this up again. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can use the second one, but not the first one, in a userbox. The first one is non-free, but the second one is. –MuZemike 01:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought, but wanted to make sure. Thanks! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Baker III, Tedescoboy22, etc, etc[edit]

These are all socks of banned user User:Wiki brah AKA user:JeanLatore AKA etc. Pretty obvious if you are familiar with their style. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. I've "known" this person since 2005. For "BEANS" reasons I'd rather not list the fingerprints -- my e-mail works. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 01:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I mean, I'm not terribly familiar with Wiki brah's MO, but I know disruption and socking when I see it :) –MuZemike 01:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prohibition in Canada[edit]

Good call. --John (talk) 02:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request[edit]

Hi there MIKE, VASCO here,

could you please do something about Geraldo Alves' page? I keep getting stuff reverted by an anon user (yes it takes to to edit war i know). It's getting serious because in my last edits i fixed redirects which appear(ed) in storyline, the other user reverts it back, thus re-creating them.

Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I gave a short 3-day rangeblock on 188.25.192.0/18 for the edit warring. –MuZemike 21:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks on that one Mike. Also, pay attention to this anon IP. Maybe it has been used by several people, but one thing i know for sure, at Vítor Baía, nothing but sheer vandalism was added ("contributions" here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/62.22.30.131). Cheers - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 01:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

Thanks for the semi on ANI. Can we manually archive the target thread to prevent further disruption once the semi expires? Obviously the archive page would have to be semi'd to prevent vandalism there. N419 BH 08:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'd say that's probably a good idea. –MuZemike 08:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

K. I'm gonna grab the first two threads since discussion has ended and they both deal with essentially the same topic. N419 BH 08:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done...and already reverted. People just don't get it...N419 BH 08:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It got re-removed, so all is good. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be the only admin online[edit]

So could you revdel the last few revsiions here? thanks Access Denied – talk to me 08:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MuZemike is a robot, didn't you know? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, those were the worst personal attacks I've ever seen with the exception of /b/. Access Denied – talk to me 08:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated:Does anyone here know if there is a "expand all comments" button on Slashdot? Access Denied – talk to me 09:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly labeled that, but right above "The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way," there's a bar to move across. By default it shows only 40 comments. Move the bar all the way to the right and you can see all comments. Goodvac (talk) 09:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed - Part 2[edit]

Mike, this is seriously getting out of hand (and i see i got no reply about the Vítor Baía "incident", sorry for bothering you);

in Geraldo Alves, the edit warring goes on, and the threatening messages have begun, first with the Romanian user ordering, not asking, ORDERING i stop editing the page, no "please" no nothing (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:VascoAmaral#Geraldo), then insulting me (here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:VascoAmaral#YOU_ARE_STUPID.3F.3F.3F.3F). Please take the necessary measures. Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the last thing I want to do is semi-protect your talk page because that disallows IPs who may have legitimate comments. However, I have semi-protected the two articles; looks like you have a wiki-staking edit warrior of some sort who doesn't like what you're doing :) –MuZemike 17:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a million, sorry for my hastiness regarding Baía :( However, please notice that the user in G.Alves seems to have a neverending supply of anon IPs, and he has great manners as well. Cheers! - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another bad development: i see the user is already registered (see his account contributions here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Qmihai24), and has resumed his stuff in Alves' article... --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've made another slew of blocks after confirming via CU a sock on one of the ranges; that's explained in my block of Qmihai24 on his talk page. –MuZemike 17:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to reach an understanding with the Romanian user, even though his manners leave a lot to be desired - maybe a byproduct of his very poor English. I hope you did not block him thinking i asked for it; if you did, please unblock him if you see fit, he is in no way a vandal, and even though he created several redirects upon reverting the article, also kept correcting one in which i incurred. Thank you very much in advance - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 19:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, the user is severely edit warring and is having a rather hard time discussing anything (except go figure he's probably talking now because he's getting blocked). If you wish to talk to the user, I have no problem with that; let me know what I can do to mitigate the situation. However, the end result must be that he clearly understands what he is doing (edit warring) is wrong and that such changes need to be discussed. –MuZemike 21:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another Duncantash sock ?[edit]

I'm not sure what the marks of a Duncantash sock are, but if Aislinggibson (talk · contribs) is one, then edits like this suggest that Sofine69 (talk · contribs) may well be another. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 19:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked, along with three others. IP range now hardblocked for a good while. –MuZemike 21:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible vandal and Sock puppet?[edit]

Hi MuZemike, I have been advised by User:Floquenbeam to see what you think on a particular anon user. An anon using the IP 78.83.249.8 keeps removing sourced infromation on Turks living in Bulgaria and the FYR Macedonia (see Turkish people, Turkish population, Turks in Europe and Turkish minorities). They insist on only using data from the census'. The articles currently use both the census' as well as recent academic sources. There has been a minor edit war (whereby the anon removes the academic sources which are recent estimates, probably because they do not like the idea that the Turkish population could be higher than a 10 year old census claims); but looking at their historic contributions they seem to remove a lot of information which is sourced. In my opinion, it is clear vandalism.Justinz84 (talk) 14:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser Request for EAR Thread[edit]

Could you do a CU for the people mentioned on this EAR thread, please? Something doesn't seem right that this person with 30 edits finds three pages that aren't exactly on the "new member" list: ANI, a thread about a blocked user on an admin's talkpage, and EAR. Thanks. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed:

Aisha9152 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
BEARinAbasket (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Stilton Cheesewright (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
SunHwaKwonh (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Mynameismik is Unrelated. –MuZemike 15:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, at least we caught a sock, just not the one I thought. That is on me thinking it was Mynameismik, but one sock is better than none. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and a question[edit]

Thanks for your work on cleaning up User:Susanne2009NYC's contributions. Truthkeeper88 and I are working on cleaning up The Story of Miss Moppet and I wanted to make sure that it was OK to upload new versions of the images that you deleted under WP:BAN before I went to the work of uploading them again. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with that. Just make sure they are tagged properly, as they cannot be uploaded on Commons since they're PD only in the United States. –MuZemike 20:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Judy Taylor[edit]

Apologies if this is a dumb question but how do I get to look at the pre-deletion content of children's author Judy Taylor, which you have deleted as part of the User:Susanne2009NYC CCI. I'd like to see whether it's fixable.--Plad2 (talk) 21:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, I would email you a copy, but since you don't have email, I can userfy it for you and see if it's at all salvageable. –MuZemike 21:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've just enabled e-mail if that helps.--Plad2 (talk) 06:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pararubbas[edit]

Hi there MIKE, VASCO here,

remember this (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pararubbas/Archive)? This guy is relentless, going for 100 accounts, no doubt about that, not talking to a "living soul" - i remind you again he edits from ENGLAND (!), so he has to have a minimal grasp of the language to understand the 1,000000000 messages he has received, from various users.

New account called Nimop890 ("contributions" here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Nimop890) - please note the similarity in account names (the 8, the 9, the 0, the letters), what can be done about this person, this is getting out of hand - God knows how many more he has out there, he has opened simultaneous accounts in the past - he shows no respect, why should he get any in my opinion? Thanks a million in advance. - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 01:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. –MuZemike 01:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uploads by Susanne2009NYC[edit]

Susanne2009NYC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I noticed you deleted all her Beatrix Potter uploads. Now, I did some consider work with the licensing on those (hence my watchlist currently reads a junkload of "MuZemike (talk | contribs | block) deleted "File:X" (G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban)", and it appeared to be legitimate, and quite useful on top of that. Do you think it would be OK if you could consider undeletion? I don't know the history of the socking or any other content, mind you, and I'm quite aware that G5 is an excellent deterrent against socking. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This person has tried to return before as Kathyrncelestewright (talk · contribs); that user is a sock of banned user ItsLassieTime (talk · contribs). Please see the following pages:

Bottom line is that user is banned and is not allowed to edit here, period. G5 is so that banned users are not motivated to come back and think they can return anytime they want – exactly what this user is trying to do. Usefulness, notability, etc., cannot be allowed to override the banning policy. And if we're going to decide to undelete all 119 files and 28 articles, then we might as well unban ItsLassieTime because the ban would be worthless. –MuZemike 23:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aw. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I can offer a compromise. MuZemike, could you find where the images were taken from and Magog could reupload them correctly, with correct FURs and such and then all would be well? Also, could the articles be sent to him (one by one of course) by email, so he could work on them an make them his own (with correct sourcing and such), so they didn't represent the work of ILT/Suzanne and then repost them? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't touched the articles, so I don't know if they're worth recreation. But in any event, I am an admin so I can see them and recreate them if necessary, although it would be a heavy amount of work! Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's the same question Ruhrfisch asked above in the "Thanks and a question" section. I have no problem with that. The main thing is that I don't want ILT's or any of her new socks' names on any of the files. –MuZemike 00:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, that's what I am talking about (same as Ruhrfisch above). I guess it is already moving along, so this is good. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. That would be impossible for the self-scanned or self-cropped images, which is most of them. Although they're all marked {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}, I'm not sure we can assume the derivative crop doesn't need attribution. Shoot. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give me a couple of these image names or what they are and I can see what I can find online. I am pretty good at finding things. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I think most of them seem to be scans from various fairytale books, so I don't know if would be able to be found online. This is my deletion log here. –MuZemike 00:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Potter ones are all at Project Gutenberg, or if you can't find them there, tell me and I'll make scans as I have all the books. Can't help you with most of the others though. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NH: you can find most of them still in Google cache, e.g., [71]. You'll want to hurry though naturally! I'd say save the page on your hard drive if you're low on time. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(following comments moved from here by User:Magog the Ogre)Finding most on Google cache, but I am going for non-ILW images. OK, the Little Black Sambo 1st Edition image can be found here. That should be a good one. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean ILT not ILW? If so, we're discussing the uploads by ILT. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry, got my abbreviations mixed up. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting to go through her contributions - found File:RRH Walter Crane 1875.jpg uploaded in August. We already have quite a few images by the same illustrator, and if this particular image is needed it can be re-uploaded. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I know from her posts in the past that she did have a collection of fairytale books, which I'm sure she meant to scan. I don't know if they would have been available from the illustrator or Project Gutenberg or similar. –MuZemike 00:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of this stuff is available from Gutenberg or elsewhere - I wrote Edmund Evans and Chromoxylography, so am familiar with some the illustrators of the period. We can get it back if we need. I just don't think we need another Walter Crane, and if we do, we can re-upload. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Butting in here, but I'm failing to see what good this has done. It's making a whole lot of pointless extra work for no tangible reason; essentially you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Deleting the images won't stop the user from coming back if they chose to, so what purpose does it serve, other than to remove completely useful images that will all need reuploading? AD 00:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then we might as well unban/unblock her as it's worthless. –MuZemike 00:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bans are worthless - unless you physically restrain the person, or block every IP in the world they have access to, there's nothing to stop them from editing - as is the case with Susanne, who edited for months with thousands of edits. You've still not explained the benefits of deleting the images - as I said, it's not going to stop her from editing, so what's the point? AD 00:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify: if you want all her images and articles restored, then we might as well unban/unblock her. Perhaps this is more for a general discussion on the banning policy, but we cannot be encouraging banned user to keep returning and doing this. I already had a rough consensus to delete everything the last time her socks were blocked (note: consensus could change), I don't see how this is any different. –MuZemike 00:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Her articles were full of copyvios and plagiarized: I'm not bothered about them. It's public domain images that I am concerned with. I'm still not understanding how undeleting = must unblock; it's hardly encouraging her, as we've blocked her. She will choose whether or not to edit here, not someone else. I didn't participate in the discussion last time, but I would want to see the images restored. It really doesn't matter who uploaded them, just that they were uploaded. None of our readers care about banned users, and we are shooting ourselves (and them) in the foot by destroying our own encyclopedia - just to make a point to a banned user. It just seems like busywork to me, for no tangible benefits whatsoever. AD 00:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review, then. –MuZemike 00:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She remains unblocked on Commons, which may be where she uploaded most of her public domain images. Commons don't seem to have such a draconian banning policy (afaik) so luckily her images are still there. If none of her images uploaded here were actually "free", then there isn't an issue. Unfortunately, since you deleted so many and I obviously can't see them, a DRV is completely impractical. AD 00:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The images I was specifically referring to when I first left this section are PD in the US but not in the UK, which is their country of origin; they will not be until 2014. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Autoblock of FarmBoySoldier[edit]

See User talk:FarmBoySoldier. I have placed the unblock request on hold pending your response. Thanks, Bovlb (talk) 05:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed as ItsLassieTime (talk · contribs); I have directly blocked the account. –MuZemike 00:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. BTW, sorry to be picky, but this green hurts my eyes. Bovlb (talk) 20:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was this shade of green a little better? I mean, I wondered myself, too. –MuZemike 21:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That looks much better. Bovlb (talk) 00:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wannabe?[edit]

Could you have a wannabe? BOVINEBOY2008 14:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Quacked loud enough for me. Blocked and tagged. Favonian (talk) 14:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I don't need to ask another user to "unlock" articles (for all intents and purposes; it's still a good idea if another admin protected per common courtesy at least). Wow. –MuZemike 17:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

lol. Syrthiss (talk) 17:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mail[edit]

Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GiacomoReturned again[edit]

I am too tired that he has not been blocked yet. When will this be fixed, he should not be talking the way he does to other editors. I will need you to help me on this. Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 19:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavellB5 (talk • contribs) [reply]

It's an imposter account, MZ. GoodDay (talk) 19:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He fooled me too. Did I oversleep, and is it April 1 already? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's almost as bad as my impersonator above! At least this one got the username and signature down correctly, unlike in the other one ([72]). –MuZemike 20:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dave's impostor made one mistake that resulted in his real username being appended to the fake name. The song "The Great Pretender" is running through my head now. (There's also a song "The Great Impostor", but it's not nearly as tuneful.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Watch List?[edit]

Hi MuZemike, you were instrumental is sorting out this little sock factory recently and were able to uncover these sock accounts. This IP editor has just shown up, editing the exact same articles, with the same edits, here, here. Though they are currently blocked at the minute, could you possibly put this IP on your watch list? It will save a whole load of bother later. Thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 21:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dude.[edit]

You just blocked Forever forever.

Damn that's apt. HalfShadow 01:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for blocking all of those sockpuppets![edit]

	The Working Man's Barnstar
	Thank you for blocking all of those sockpuppets created to vandalize my talk pages. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]