User talk:MuZemike/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Skydox article advice

Hi MuZemike, I was approached on twitter by a developer I know who works for a company called skydox - apparently they've had some issues creating a page (and looking into it I can see why!) I'm wondering if the easiest way is to write the page myself? Any objections to me writing and submitting a short factual entry on them? let me know here or on my talk page - and advice appreciated thanks!! RNsarlacpit (talk) 16:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't remember any of the details, but as long as you have a valid article with some sources, I don't see any problems with you creating it. --MuZemike 20:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 January newsletter

WikiCup 2012 is off to a flying start. At the time of writing, we have 112 contestants; comparable to last year, but slightly fewer than 2010. Signups will remain open for another week, after which time they will be closed for this year. Our currrent far-away leader is Grapple X (submissions), due mostly to his work on a slew of good articles about The X-Files; there remain many such articles waiting to be reviewed at good article candidates. Second place is currently held by Ruby2010 (submissions), whose points come mostly from good articles about television episodes, although good article reviews, did you knows and an article about a baroness round out the score. In third place is Jivesh boodhun (submissions), who has scored 200 points for his work on a single featured article, as well as points for work on others, mostly in the area of pop music. In all, nine users have 100 or more points. However, at the other end of the scale, there are still dozens of participants who are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly!

The 64 highest scoring participants will advance to round 2 in a month's time. There, they will be split into eight random groups of eight. The score needed to reach the next round is not at all clear; last year, 8 points guaranteed a place. The year before, 20.

A few participants and their work warrant a mention for achieving "firsts" in this competition.

• 12george1 (submissions) was the first to score, with his good article review of Illinois v. McArthur.
• 12george1 (submissions) was also the first to score points for an article, thanks to his work on Hurricane Debby (1982)- now a good article. Tropical storms have featured heavily in the Cup, and good articles currently have a relatively fast turnaround time for reviews.
• Sp33dyphil (submissions) was the first to score points for a did you know, with Russian submarine K-114 Tula. Military history is another subject which has seen a lot of Cup activity.
• Sp33dyphil (submissions) is also the first person to successfully claim bonus points. Terminator 2: Judgment Day is now a good article, and was eligible for bonus points because the subject was covered on more than 20 other Wikipedias at the start of the competition. It is fantastic to see bonus points being claimed so early!
• Speciate (submissions) was the first to score points for an In the News entry, with Paedophryne amauensis. The lead image from the article was also used on the main page for a time, and it's certainly eye-catching!
• Jivesh boodhun (submissions) was the first to score points for a featured article, and is, at the moment, the only competitor to claim for one. The article, "Halo" (Beyoncé Knowles song), was also worth double points because of its wide coverage. While this is an article that Jivesh and others have worked on for some time, it is undeniable that he has put considerable work into it this year, pushing it over the edge.

We are yet to see any featured lists, featured topics or good topics, but this is unsurprising; firstly, the nomination processes with each of these can take some time, and, secondly, it can take a considerable amount of time to work content to this level. In a similar vein, we have seen only one featured article. The requirement that content must have been worked on this year to be eligible means that we did not expect to see these at the start of the competition. No points have been claimed for featured portals or pictures, but these are not content types which are often claimed; the former has never made a big impact on the WikiCup, while the latter has not done so since 2009's competition.

A quick rules clarification before the regular notices: If you are concerned that another user is claiming points inappropriately, please contact a judge to take a look at the article. Competitors policing one another can create a bad atmosphere, and may lead to inconsistencies and mistakes. Rest assured that we, the judges, are making an effort to check submissions, but it is possible that we will miss something. On a loosely related note: If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! 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 and The ed17 00:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

SPI for User:Fortheloveofbacon

Since you mentioned and the user did contact you above, I am letting you know an active SPI. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Request to review a GA nominee

Dear MuZemike,

I'm not sure if you have enough time or find this appropriate, but I'm posting here to ask you to review good article nominee Bloody Thursday (2011). I have read your GA standards and hopefully adhered to most if not all of them. Bahraini Activist ^{Talk to me} 18:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll have a little time this weekend to take a look, but I will say right now just from after clicking on that article, it needs a bigger lead, at least twice as big and in a way that will most concisely summarise the event. --MuZemike 03:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Blocked Account

You have inappropriately blocked an account of mine, made subsequent to a discussion with arbcom. Please undo the block, and explain how your actions do not constitute an abuse of your adminship. If you could please point me to any sort of discussion relating to your block of User:RelevantUsername I would appreciate it.Fortheloveofbacon (talk) 04:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I blocked that account (see block log) shortly after you were blocked as a suspected sock of User:ChildOfMidnight, which you were unblocked by User:Hersfold shortly after that (see block log).

To make things clearer, the timeline is as follows:

• 22:42, 21 January 2012 Elen of the Roads (talk | contribs | block) blocked Fortheloveofbacon (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Abusing multiple accounts: Please see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ChildofMidnight)
• 23:36, 21 January 2012 MuZemike (talk | contribs | block) blocked RelevantUsername (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Abusing multiple accounts)
• 01:16, 22 January 2012 Hersfold (talk | contribs | block) unblocked Fortheloveofbacon (talk | contribs) (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fortheloveofbacon&diff=472532419&oldid=472529480)

I blocked the account because, as normally all sockpuppet accounts of banned users are indefinitely blocked as per our banning policy. However, given your unblock, this is apparently not the case. Anyways, between January 22 and until now (February 3), nobody has brought up by you or anybody else the need to unblock your alternative account on top of your original account. If you felt that you were wronged by this, then let me take the opportunity to apologize as many of us acted rather swiftly on the suspicion of sock puppetry and may have arrived at a hasty decision.

That being said, in order for me to help you, you need to help us: As long as you are willing to openly declare that User:RelevantUsername is your alternative account, preferably by placing the {{Alternative account}} tag on your account's user or user talk page or by creating redirects from your alt account's userpages to your original account's userpages, I have no problem with unblocking.

What we cannot have are undisclosed alt accounts lying around and editing without people knowing – many people, including myself, see such actions as deceptive and need to be stopped. That is the crux of our sock puppetry policy. However, if they are openly declared, and people are aware to where there is no deception, then you're fine. --MuZemike 03:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

If he is openly declaring the account and the account can be connected to him and only him (and not anyone else) then I think we can put this entire thing to bed (it has been going on for a loooong time). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

ℱorƬheℒoveofℬacon ✉ • ✍ 10:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit Filter #439

At Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism/TB2 bots are being reported for apparently tripping Edit Filter #439. Since you made an edit to this filter a few days ago, perhaps you could have a look and see if it needs to be adjusted (or maybe the current false positives are acceptable?). Thanks. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like another user fixed it. --MuZemike 23:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Rangeblock of 109.155.160.0/19

You may want to revisit this rangeblock - this is part of an even larger range owned by BT. Rebooting my router got me a different address outside the blocked range, so I don't think the block is likely to be effective. (And at the risk of being obvious, blocking the whole BT dynamic address range would be a bad thing... :) Interplanet Janet (talk) 19:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, but if other users who are caught, then they will need to request an account via the appropriate channels, preferably WP:ACC. Otherwise, banned users are not allowed to edit, and if we cannot prevent banned users from editing, then the ban on that user should be lifted. --MuZemike 23:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Just playing

WBJB03 (talk · contribs) who you blocked has re-appeared as WBJB003 (talk · contribs). I am inclined to apply a permanent block on the new account since there is no indication that he is going to do any useful edits. If you agree with me, just go ahead and block him or take such action as you feel appropriate. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Blocked and tagged. All creations from him, including in WP:AFC, have been deleted. --MuZemike 23:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

FYI

Just so you know, some shenanigans are going on at KBlott. RFPP filed. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit of interest

I suspect this edit might interest you. I've reverted. --IznoRepeat (talk) 18:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Ping

Could you please weigh in on User talk:The Garbage Skow since you blocked him as a puppet over a year ago? He says he has not vandalized or socked for a year, so per WP:OFFER I was feeling he could be unblocked. Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I just noticed you are on break and may not be able to respond to questions. I'm going to unblock him, as he doesn't appear to have socked following his block. (And if I'm wrong and he starts vandalizing or socking again, he can always be swiftly re-blocked.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I cautiously say that it's OK. Let's hope things work out better this time around. --MuZemike 02:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Block

Hey MuZemike, 141.110.189.29 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was blocked a bit back by you, and I have an appeal request on Unblock-en-l. Can you clarify the reason this IP was blocked? (aka is it a CU block?) -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 21:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Mainly a CU block due to abuse by a banned user. However, looking at the request on the mailing list, the account request should be good to create. --MuZemike 23:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Rangeblock Request on ANI

I have brought this particular request to you before (you were available earlier, hence why I went to ANI). Could you take a look at this post and see what you can do. I am requesting a long-term proxy rangeblock, but am being stopped, even though we have tagged some of the talk pages on this range as proxies. Even a rangeblock of a year would be nice. I think we have played enough whack-a-mole on this one and we might have to deal with a little collateral damage to stop this editor. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. Asked two other admins (since you were offline) and they didn't seem too interested in blocking the vandal, so I wouldn't waste your time with it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive editor

68.45.60.20 has intoduced unsourced content (probably OR) to List of Splinter Cell characters and an unreliable source to List of Silent Hill, Silent Hill 2, and Silent Hill 3 characters. Same geolocation traits, blanking of personal talk page, and use of capitals to convey emphasis with 68.37.56.163, so I guess it's WP:DUCK. Hula Hup (talk) 18:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - an SPI has been filed on the disruptive IP in question. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Unsure of the relation at the moment, but sock or not, I have blocked that IP for extreme harassment. --MuZemike 23:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you please disable the IP's talk page access? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Question

Thank you for answering the question I asked about where lock requests, now I know where it is. Érico Júnior Wouters ^Talk 22:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Persistent vandal you blocked in back & evading

Tailsman67, and editor with whom you've dealt in the past, is back using IP 98.71.47.189. He still is meant to be rangeblocked (issued by you to 184.44.128.0/19). Thanks for dealing with this once more. Salvidrim! 06:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, block and delete again, then. --MuZemike 08:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Never mind, I have blocked the IP for 1 week; I expect a rangeblock shortly. --MuZemike 08:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Lemme know, rangeblocks aren't immediately apparent, so I'll add it. Salvidrim! 08:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

If any similar IP comes back and disrupts the exact same thing, please let me know. I think you have documented the range's activity very well. --MuZemike 08:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I try, I try... we're two or three editors that have repeatedly dealt with this particular vandal, so I'm not the only one keeping an eye out. :) Salvidrim! 08:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

SPI-related question

Your statement here is part of the subject of discussion in the "Community ban proposal for User:The Fresh Beat Band" section of WP:ANI. Would you please comment at ANI about that statement? I at least (not sure about others) am unsure whether you made that statement based on your Checkuser findings or based on evidence that we can all see. Nyttend (talk) 01:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

92.41.0.0/16 block

Hi MuZemike, could you check what the circumstances are that led to the 92.41.0.0/16 block? It seems like a very active range, with thousands of addresses (according to my own tool 5403 unique IP's) that have edited Wikipedia. Regards, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I can tell you right now, it's because of persistent and extreme abuse on that range over the past year by indefinitely blocked user Anoraker (talk · contribs): see 92.41.75.27, 92.40.54.198, 92.41.90.213, 92.41.52.224, 92.41.210.110, 92.41.64.200, 92.41.224.149, 92.41.202.43, 92.41.20.123, 92.41.194.44, 92.41.194.103, 92.41.192.161, 92.41.186.106, 92.41.185.119, 92.41.184.151, 92.41.172.177, as well as all 10 sockpuppets of this user, located at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Anoraker. --MuZemike 20:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the problem seems to have migrated to a new rage 92.40... as can be seen in the article history of Bullocks Coaches ( compare [1] [2]). At the moment I've only noticed one article and its talk page being targetted, both of which are now semi-protected, but about seven IPs in the space of four days have been involved and I wouldn't be surprised if it spilled onto other articles which were previously affected. 20:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I have extended the semi-protection of that article to 1 year. I am also seriously considering rangeblocking 92.40.0.0/16 as well (as it has been frequently blocked in the past due to extreme abuse by another indefinitely blocked user). --MuZemike 20:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for coming back to it so quickly! It always a sad thing we have to rangeblock thousands of users to catch one or two dedicated vandals, but unfortunately, quite often there is little choice. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Sarah, oh Sarah

Thanks for putting your foot down. Hope that'll put a lid on her for a while. Favonian (talk) 00:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Masturbation

Hello, I would like to post an image to this article, but it has been locked for sometime, can I request permission to upload this file: [[3]]. Note: It is not a spam image, it is on wikimedia commons which I feel is relevant to the article itself. Abhijay ^{What did I do this time?} 10:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Given that there is absolutely no verification for those claims in reliable sources (note--it's not in in any way obscene, but it lists over a dozen different "negative" effects of masturbation...coming, as far as I can tell, out of nowhere), including that anywhere on Wikipedia would be terrible, and this picture is an excellent example of the way Commons fails to deal with original research. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Chaosname puppets

Saw you blocking another puppet of this and I reverted their remaining edits, but I'm sure that 95.199.15.96 is also a puppet. CU was declined, but I think the duck evidence is fair enough. Are their any others out there at this time? Calabe1992 02:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

No, you're right, and I have reblocked the range that he has been disrupting on. --MuZemike 02:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Excellent. Calabe1992 02:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

VRML

You fully protected this page two months ago due to sockpuppetry. Can't itbe lowered to semi? The protection is locking out helpful edits by non-admins. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Whenever that page is semi-protected, then User:Wikinger comes back to try and WP:OWN the article. Given his efforts to blatantly bust autoconfirmed in order to edit past a semi-protected page, I don't see much alternative to full-protection so far. Lifting it will automatically open the door back open to the same disruption that has been going on for the past year and a half. --MuZemike 03:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

But what about people who want to make constructive edits? They could make edit requests, but wouldn't it be easier to just lower the protection level? Perhaps a filter or something would work, or block immediately any suspected sockpuppets. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I did notice that another admin has placed a bunch of rangeblocks down on some of his more-used ranges, so I'm going to try semi again and see what happens. However, I'm not terribly optimistic that it will stick. --MuZemike 13:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

IP sock has returned...

Hi, 68.45.60.20 (talk · contribs · info · WHOIS) (whom I clearly suspect to be the sock of the banned user Fragments of Jade (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) has returned, this time leaving very defensive edit summaries and has left a harassing message on my talk page. Can you please do something about this? Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 13:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like it's been appropriately blocked by another admin. --MuZemike 13:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Rango (2011 film)

And I'm afraid the IP-hopping serial vandal has returned to the talk page at Rango (2011 film) with the same edits that required the page to be protected last time. He returned almost immediately after your previous page protection tag was lifted. Oy! --Tenebrae (talk) 17:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like the talk page was already re-protected. Apologies for not responding earlier due to my busy schedule IRL. --MuZemike 13:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Someone Wrongfully Blocked

Hey Checker Fred was wrongfully blocked, because you thought he was a sock puppet. He wants to discuss it with you at his email. user.checkerfred@yahoo.com. Jon23812 (talk) 22:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

No, he wasn't. And his sock allegations are completely wrong, as well. This is not the first time he has tried to pull this, either. --MuZemike 13:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

And yet once more, Tailsman67 is back.

This vandal, with whom you've dealt often in the past, is once again back. The IP is 98.71.47.189, which you've blocked very recently; still is evading an ongoing rangeblock you had applied. Thanks for (once again...) assisting. :) Salvidrim! 22:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

IP block extended until the end of the school year (unless he does summer school, as well). --MuZemike 00:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest I doubt that the link between the editing and school is really that strong, but hopefully he will, at some point, "grow out of it". Thanks for your patience... :) Salvidrim! 00:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 February newsletter

Round 1 is already over! The 64 highest scorers have progressed to round 2. Our highest scorer was Grapple X (submissions), again thanks mostly to a swathe of good articles on The X-Files. In second place was Tigerboy1966 (submissions), thanks an impressive list of did you knows about racehorses. Both scored over 400 points. Following behind with over 300 points were Ruby2010 (submissions), Cwmhiraeth (submissions), Miyagawa (submissions) and Casliber (submissions). February also saw the competition's first featured list: List of colleges and universities in North Dakota, from Ruby2010 (submissions). At the other end of the scale, 11 points was enough to secure a place in this round, and some contestants with 10 points made it into the round on a tiebreaker. This is higher than the 8 points that were needed last year, but lower than the 20 points required the year before. The number of points required to progress to round 3 will be significantly higher.

The remaining contestants have been split into 8 pools of 8, named A through H. Round two will finish in two months time on 28 April, when the two highest scorers in each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers, will progress to round 3. The pools were entirely random, so while some pools may end up being more competitive than others, this is by chance rather than design.

The judges would like to point out two quick rules reminders. First, any content promoted during the interim period (that is, on or after 27 February) is eligible for points in round 2. Second, any content worked on significantly this year is eligible for points if promoted in this round. On a related note, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which would otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! 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 (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

New Page Triage engagement strategy released

Hey guys!

I'm dropping you a note because you filled out the New Page Patrol survey, and indicated you'd be interested in being contacted about follow-up work. This is to notify you that we've finally released both the initial documentation about the project and also the engagement strategy, which sets out how we plan to work with the community on this. Please give both a read, and leave any comments or suggestions you have on the talkpage, on my talkpage, or in my inbox - okeyeswikimedia.org.

It's awesome to finally get to start work on this! :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 02:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Harut Grigorian

Would you please undelete this page? It's been edited by other people other than the creator and is a useful page about a growing star in the sport. The creator made this before he/she was banned and it's only benefical to the wiki.--TheShadowCrow (talk) 18:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The creator (a sock puppet of User:WölffReik) was already evading block at the time, and the article has had no significant edits made by others. I have no problem with somebody else recreating the article, but I cannot entertain such a request to allow a user who knows that he can get away with it to allow his edits to remain. --MuZemike 00:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Why was he banned in the first place and his 2012 and 2011 in kickboxing pages removed? If you can't tell me, I understand, but he seemed to just be trying to contribute. Is there any way I can view the former article to help me create a new one? As you probably know, it's quite time consuming. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 21:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I've invoked your name in an old case

Have a look at the latest in [[Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets affiliated with Management Institute of Canada]]. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

This may be of some interest: last Friday, there was an investigative journalism television show that discussed these unaccredited institutes, and specifically the MIC & DIU, at great length here in Quebec, even featuring an interview with the "head honcho". It reruns at various times throughout the week. :) Salvidrim! 22:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Obvious sock w/o master

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

Obviously a sock, but I think we should find out who it is, because I don't know which sockmaster. Account is blocked but CU would be nice to perhaps make a block of the underlying IP(s).Jasper Deng (talk) 03:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the name cracks me up! Salvidrim! 03:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Not unusual. It's the self-declared socks like this one that I believe are making the biggest jokes out of themselves.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Rosanacurso

Hi, I really think banned user Rosanacurso is back. Please see WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/Rosanacurso. Two so far. Let's see what happens at SPI, but I would like to suggest semi-protection of Tea (meal) and Talk:Tea (meal) as that has just been hit and they were by far the hardest hit pages last time. Thank you. Logical Cowboy (talk) 17:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your help. If you have any other suggestions for how to deal with this, please let me know. BTW, here is a translation of Cirolp's contribution.

"The plain English is a very unique person who still has several characteristic features that distinguish it from other societies. However, when it comes to culture and customs typical English, not just limit ourselves to Britain, but several of its former colonies, where many rituals remain British.

In places as diverse as Boston planet, Jamaica, Cairo or India, as in London still tea at five in the afternoon is a ritual that is impossible to skip. This is just the legacy that the British conquerors have left in various parts of the world with different strengths.

When we meet a typical English is important to consider some aspects of his character which marked definitely dealing with us. For example, English is much more cold and distant, for instance, the inhabitants of the peoples of Latin or Greek blood. Respect is important but even more is to adapt the forms and protocols."

It's about tea time.... And a possible copvio. It's scraped from here. [4]

Logical Cowboy (talk) 17:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Likely sockpuppetry on WP:NPOVN

I wanted to point your attention to this thread on WP:NPOVN, given the recent ANI thread with a near identical content. Thanks. Yobol (talk) 22:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Frequently auto-blocked IP

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

I've had my eyes on this address for a while, as it has a long tradition of BLP violations and a week-long block for same. While its own activities have been moderate since new year, it has been auto-blocked at least three times; in fact it's blocked as I write this. I know that CheckUsers won't divulge connections between IPs and accounts, but would it be proper for you to investigate if there is a basis for a long, hard block of this address due to sockpuppetry? Favonian (talk) 16:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I should add that my interest in this IP stems from a strong belief that it's been used by Daniel sugden who I blocked indefinitely about a month ago. Favonian (talk) 20:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of it! Favonian (talk) 10:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

173.241.225.163

Back in November 2011, you removed this ip's AfD votes, due to vote stacking, can you please review the latest contributions. I am mindful of the WMF's Privacy Policy and know you can't link IP's to accounts, but MMA has been an area where socks and socks of banned editors have been know to hang out. Mtking ^(edits) 06:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Fightloungemike (talk · contribs)

You recently left a comment on Fightloungemike's talk page about personal attacks [5]. Following you leaving that comment he has responded in an Afd to someone's !vote that it was a "ridiculous vote by someone who knows nothing about MMA"[6]. I've, surprisingly, not dealt with a user who is as combative as Fightloungemike has been, particularly for a new user. How much are comments like the AfD response considered to be a personal attack (it's definitely not constructive) and at what point should he be listed at WP:ANI for those kinds of comments? Thanks for any response you can give with your busy schedule. I'll keep an eye on your talk page for when you have a chance to offer advice. --TreyGeek (talk) 18:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe he hasn't made any additional attacks like the ones I have linked since my warning, so, for now, let's see what happens. I would hope that, aside from the vitriol that is apparently being caused, people can come to some sort of rough agreement on these articles - an agreement that is free of direct attacks or underhanded sockpuppetry. --MuZemike 03:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I have raised the issue at WP:ANI. Bjmullan (talk) 17:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

MMA IP Editor(s)

Given the privacy policy, what it the procedure about looking into socking/votestacking from the IP range 63.3.19.x ? Mtking ^(edits) 22:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

An SPI has already been started --TreyGeek (talk) 22:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

(Hopefully) All AfDs have now been semi-protected for 1 week, which will be the remainder of their discussion periods. Let me know if any other disruption occurs. --MuZemike 23:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Since people seem to watch here, AfD opinions by User:The Bachmann Editor Overdrive should also be struck. Amalthea 00:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I was already checking it when you pinged me. I now have two indefinitely blocked sock puppeters, several semi-protected AfD pages, and one rangeblocked /24. I will keep going if necessary if to stop the obvious hoodwinkery and deception going on. --MuZemike 00:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

172.130.252.250 is currently Blocked for "Personal attacks or harassment" at the same Afd('s), is there reason to suspect a link with the 63.3.19.x range given they both seem to be from Virginia ? Mtking ^(edits) 02:27, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Conduct of Turco85

Will you please also investigate the conduct of Turco85 with regards to his edits. Especially the "Algerian Turks" article, which he completely invented. Best regards,

GAYousefSaanei (talk) 00:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I guess not. Seems I am the only one that actually cares about the accuracy of articles. Instead you'd rather play silly games [7]GAYousefSaanei (talk) 01:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

OK then, I am then done playing games; you are again blocked. --MuZemike 05:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet of User:WBJB03

A couple of editors and I have been having issues with a new user, User:NCISfan2, recently. In the course of gathering some evidence with an eye toward conflict resolution, I came across the following, which includes NCISfan's first edit to other than his talk page: edit by the blocked editor: [8], your revert: [9], NCISfan's restoration [10] and ID change: [11], all within about 72 hours. User:WBJB003 was blocked by you on February 3 (a Friday); NCISfan2 registered on February 6 (the following Monday); we know WBJ was using school-based internet access, and NCISfan2 as mentioned his laptop is down and has identified himself as a school boy, aged 14 via his userboxes.

All of that may be perfectly innocent, until I looked closer. Both are reasonably skilled editors, NCISfan2 in particular is far too capable for someone registered only six weeks. Both are devoted to editing their talk pages, with a handful of meaningful edits to articles and most telling both share common interests in Lego, Roblox and the TV show NCIS. But most telling are the devotion to their user pages and the seeming lack of understanding of how rules and procedures work around here. Worse, NCISfan2's behavior seems to be accelerating; you had to remove a few self-assigned barnstars from WBJ's talk page, but NCISfan is attempting to effectively act as an admin or at least give the appearance he is one. Just a couple examples, where he: a) Reviews blocks, tells admin to lift them: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Crazycomputers&action=edit&section=6; b) Removed templates inappropriately: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NCISfan2&diff=next&oldid=479132108 and c) added a protection template: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NCISfan2&diff=next&oldid=479678380. We've also had issues with him abusing warning templates, including on my talk page [12], and those of two other users: SizzlerSam [13] and AussieLegend [14], which I removed, followed by this warning: [15]

There's more, but I think you get the picture. User:John_of_Reading has been infinitely patient trying to help him with his many talk-page wishes, and to get him on track, and he's been warned about the purpose of Wikipedia [16], which seems to elude him. There's also some conflict with an IP user that's lead to him initiating a "classified" investigation; I suspect this is a school chum against whom he's got a grudge, and the exchange of messages with [User:DoriSmith] regarding this were removed at the behest of another editor. It's odd business, and in need of some action. I was considering reopening the SPI when I saw the note that you'd blocked WBJ prior to the SPI reaching a decision, so I thought before I went there, I should at least lay this out for you, make you aware of it, and get your thoughts. Frankly, I hear a whole flock of ducks quacking, but since I'm an involved party, I do think a fresh set of eyes reviewing this might be a prudent move. Thanks!! --Drmargi (talk) 18:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

No response from you on this above, but I'm guessing you needed the SPI before you could act, correct? Regardless, thank you! --Drmargi (talk) 13:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I just caught it on the SPI, and I'm still in the process of catching up. Sorry for not getting it earlier. --MuZemike 13:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

No problem! As long as he's squared away, I'm not concerned how we got there. NCISfan2 was in the sights of so many admins, I was being uber-careful about chatting with people before I barged ahead with the SPI. I'm just glad he's sorted, at least until the next sock comes along, which I fear will happen. --Drmargi (talk) 18:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Rangeblock

Please see User talk:Tobias10 and weigh in if you can shed additional light on the range you blocked a week ago. The range block record doesn't give any information about the sockpuppets you were chasing. Thanks. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Got it. I have blocked the user in question as an apparent sock. --MuZemike 21:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I noticed. I'm a bit disturbed at the idea of blocking a VPN server, though, as that may be just a single IP address in that range, accessed by the whole university faculty and staff. At least that's how VPN worked at a former employer of mine. On the other hand, in a sense a VPN server is similar to an anonymous proxy. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

No. A person wouldn't normally know how to intricately request an on-wiki unblock in his fashion, not to mention I know this is the same user for reasons I won't mention per WP:BEANS. I'm sorry, but I will not reconsider the block. --MuZemike 21:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Besides, why is the user compelled to edit from an anon proxy? --MuZemike 22:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I wondered the same thing. If he can access a VPN connection from his location, he can likely access the internet locally to him also. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Could u give me back v-rally series pls. Soz that i dnt know how 2 send messages to peeps except 4 the lov thingo, ifu could send me instructions on how to mesage peeps, i'd appreciate it,thnx. Nat0003 (talk) 01:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)nat0003Nat0003 (talk) 01:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Nat0003 (talk) 01:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

First off, no, the article you created is not going to be restored; it wasn't even an article in the first place, but just you ranting about the game. Also, in the future, you need to communicate in English because people are having a rather difficult time understanding any of your comments. --MuZemike 19:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Harut Grigorian 2

I noticed you didn't reply, so I figured you didn't see mine. C/P Original discussion:

Would you please undelete this page? It's been edited by other people other than the creator and is a useful page about a growing star in the sport. The creator made this before he/she was banned and it's only benefical to the wiki.--TheShadowCrow (talk) 18:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The creator (a sock puppet of User:WölffReik) was already evading block at the time, and the article has had no significant edits made by others. I have no problem with somebody else recreating the article, but I cannot entertain such a request to allow a user who knows that he can get away with it to allow his edits to remain. --MuZemike 00:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Why was he banned in the first place and his 2012 and 2011 in kickboxing pages removed? If you can't tell me, I understand, but he seemed to just be trying to contribute. Is there any way I can view the former article to help me create a new one? As you probably know, it's quite time consuming. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 21:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Someone65

Regarding [17], what ban? That wasn't Claritas, if that's what you were thinking. Amalthea 19:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Whoever it is, that was an obvious attempt by someone who is trying to deceive people into thinking that socking is going on. In either case, the removal was valid. --MuZemike 19:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

OK thanks, was just trying to figure out whether I needed modify a recent block (we were looking at the ranges at the same time). Amalthea 19:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I think there are several banned users that I see on those ranges you just blocked, which is fine because users shouldn't be editing from proxies to begin with. --MuZemike 19:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Harut Grigorian 2

I noticed you didn't reply, so I figured you didn't see mine. C/P Original discussion:

Would you please undelete this page? It's been edited by other people other than the creator and is a useful page about a growing star in the sport. The creator made this before he/she was banned and it's only benefical to the wiki.--TheShadowCrow (talk) 18:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The creator (a sock puppet of User:WölffReik) was already evading block at the time, and the article has had no significant edits made by others. I have no problem with somebody else recreating the article, but I cannot entertain such a request to allow a user who knows that he can get away with it to allow his edits to remain. --MuZemike 00:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Why was he banned in the first place and his 2012 and 2011 in kickboxing pages removed? If you can't tell me, I understand, but he seemed to just be trying to contribute. Is there any way I can view the former article to help me create a new one? As you probably know, it's quite time consuming. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 21:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Please reply to this soon. All I want is to put up an article of Harut Grigorian. It's not asking that much. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 19:21, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for not getting back, as I have been on and off for most of the past several days. I could userfy the article briefly if you wish to take a look at it. --MuZemike 21:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

User:MattParker 119

Can you have a look at this user and their edits, they have made three (1,2 and 3) templated warning messages on my talk page, while I have no recollection of ever interacting with the editor before they started appearing and given the MMA connection am starting to suspect it could be a sock of one of the the blocked editors. Mtking ^(edits) 02:46, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Nothing from checking, but I just blocked User:Matt Parker 117, which is  Confirmed as MattParker 119. But yeah, things aren't looking very good for him. --MuZemike 17:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I just saw edits to an MMA article from Mat Parker 117 (talk · contribs). It wasn't vandalism or non-constructive, but the user name is pretty duck-ish, especially after getting a warning from you about socking. --TreyGeek (talk) 00:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

Though I am hurt, I want to say I have nothing against you!keep on your good works!Thank you! Skashifakram (talk) 05:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

SPI/Padmalakshmisx

When you say "unrelated", do you mean technically or behaviorally? Because this guy is known for range-jumping in the past and is very likely that he is editing from a different city or town in the same geographic region. Secret of success (talk) 06:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Then I cannot conclude anything based on the CU information that I have. I've compared with recent socks of his, and there is nothing related at all. --MuZemike 21:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Unblock

FYI I unblocked User:Jakr who you recently blocked because they claimed on IRC to have forgotten the password to their old account User:Swmmr1928. Contribs seem to back this up. I've blocked their old account to prevent misuse. Dcoetzee 03:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll keep an eye out. It didn't pop up on any other check as the old account was stale. --MuZemike 03:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Userfy Harut Grigorian

Yes I would like it if you could userfy that page for me. Where are you going to put it? --TheShadowCrow (talk) 19:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Likely User:TheShadowCrow/Harut Grigorian. Salvidrim! 23:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Request for Sanctions against User:BigzMMA. Thank you. Mtking ^(edits) 01:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SFL 2

Can you keep an eye on this, and especially CookBookCharlie a "new" editor with 2 edits one of them with the phrase "is typical of the garbage I've found here at times on Wikipedia" could indicate a past editor. Thanks Mtking ^(edits) 06:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, nothing there, either. I'm sensing that there's quite a bit of off-wiki coordination (a la WP:EEML) going on with the MMA articles. --MuZemike 01:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

User:The Ultimate Editing Championship

I know this user is now blocked however given the account was clearly created by an existing MMA editor for the sole purpose to make attacks and to !vote at Afd's can anything be done to find the underlying sock master ? I understand that this is just getting tedious now. Mtking ^(edits) 11:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Any thoughts on this ? Mtking ^(edits) 22:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I was hoping that something would pop up the following day (that was yesterday), but nothing did. Sorry. --MuZemike 01:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

No worries. Mtking ^(edits) 01:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

2012 United Kingdom meteor event

An article about a major event in the United Kingdom has just been deleted with no discussion at all. The article had six reliable references and had been modified by multiple editors since creation. Could you please restore the article. --Racklever (talk) 08:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The article was created by banned user User:Ryan kirkpatrick in violation of ban and has had no significant edits from others; citation cleanup and adding/modifying categories are not significant edits. I have no problem with someone else creating it again, as long as it is not from Ryan kirkpatrick. --MuZemike 21:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Joeniger

Thanks for taking care of him in short order; I was about to raise the alarm about him. - DodgerOfZion (talk) 03:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Redcorreces and Joey Eads

Similar hissyfits but slightly different issue. I don't think that Joey Eads was "falsely" claiming PD. He was just trying to use "his" panoramio images on WP and didn't seem to understand that even those had to have the right license. I tried to tell him what he needed to do to use those images but he preferred to continue his Veruca Salt conniption. I think that one of the problems is that unlike the youtubes and the photobuckets, our rules on images and copyrights aren't just "click-and-ignore" boilerplate that's presented when you create an account and we don't wait for a rights holder to bitch before taking down a non-compliant image. Some users are not use to such stick ass strict enforcement of copyright, especially since it runs counter most of our other rules which can be ignored in some cases. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Hershebar block

Could you please protect the following pages the sock is targeting?

July 24, list of women writers, Stephanie

Thanks. Fasttimes68 (talk) 12:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 March newsletter

We are over half way through the second round of this year's WikiCup and things are going well! Grapple X (submissions), of Pool B, is our highest overall scorer thanks to his prolific writings on television and film. In second place is Pool H's Cwmhiraeth (submissions), thanks primarily to work on biological articles, especially in marine biology and herpetology. Third place goes to Pool E's Casliber (submissions), who also writes primarily on biology (including ornithology and botany) and has already submitted two featured articles this round. Of the 63 contestants remaining, 15 (just under a quarter) have over 100 points this round. However, 25 are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly. 32 contestants, the top two from each pool and the 16 next-highest scorers, will advance to round 3.

Congratulations to Matthewedwards (submissions), whose impressive File:Wacht am Rhein map (Opaque).svg became the competition's first featured picture. Also, congratulations to 12george1 (submissions), who claimed good topic points, our first contestant this year to do so, for his work on Wikipedia:Featured topics/1982 Atlantic hurricane season. This leaves featured topics and featured portals as the only sources of points not yet utilised. However, as recent statistics from Miyagawa (submissions) show, no source has yet been utilised this competition to the same extent it has been previously!

It has been observed that the backlogs at good article candidates are building up again. While the points for good article reviews will be remaining constant, any help that can be offered keeping the backlog down would be appreciated. On a related note, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! 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 (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Schools on PEI

Hi MuZemike, As u may remember you semi-protected the page Montague Regional High School. But dont get me wrong, I'm glad you did. I was only wondering if you could do the same for three more PEI high schools:

• Bluefield High School
• Colonel Gray High School
• Three Oaks Senior High School

I would be very happy if you could do this for me but if you can't then I would be ok if that. thanks Kburke559 (talk) 15:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Nyttendsucks

Thanks for the checkuser work for Catcreekcitycouncil; I created an SPI for Nyttendsucks, but it happened to be in the exact same minute as your block, so I simply deleted it. By the way, would a checkuser have been appropriate for that SPI, given the username alone, or would it have been considered fishing? Talkback, please. Nyttend (talk) 11:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it would've been, especially when the first edit was to remove some random person's talk page comment; there was plenty of suspicion there it's already in that edit, along with the username and disrupting solely via edit summaries. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Catcreekcitycouncil for all the socks that were caught. --MuZemike 12:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, any account used for the sole purpose of attacking another editor, either covertly or explicitly via username, is almost always suspect socking. --MuZemike 15:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Proxy block of 217.36.215.32

• 217.36.215.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hey, this block has been appealed on UTRS. Can you verify that this is still a proxy and/or explain how the proxy is accessed? I've done a cursory check and I can't find an open proxy at this IP. --Chris (talk) 15:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is still an open proxy, as I see open ports all over the place, including the important HTTP ports. I'm sorry, but that user will need to get off that proxy and use an actual IP in order to edit. --MuZemike 15:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Which port is the proxy running on? --Chris (talk) 16:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

All I can find is IIS, an MTA, and a router config page. None of them appear to be an open proxy. --Chris (talk) 18:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

From my limited knowlege, it seems like a closed proxy on 8080. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The IP doesn't appear to be accepting connections on port 8080 from what I can tell. --Chris (talk) 17:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've unblocked it, then. Some sock puppets may get through, but I suppose we have no choice but to live with that. --MuZemike 21:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll let the editor know. --Chris (talk) 17:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Another sock of User:Temporary for Bonaparte?

It seems that WP:SPI has been short-cutted a lot by going straight to your talk page. If you want me to go to SPI, just say so. I suspect that User:Pro Elite Fan Man is a sock of User:Temporary for Bonaparte or possibly User:The Bachmann Editor Overdrive. It's a new account as of today and immediately jumped into the MMA AfDs arguing keep much the same as the other users who have ultimately been found to be socks. --TreyGeek (talk) 00:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Also User:AugustWest1980 seams to know about lots of WP polices for someone with such few edits and the comment "bullying tactics being utilized by those who seek these UFC article deletions" is reminiscent of past MMA socks. Mtking ^(edits) 00:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

User:AugustWest1980 is  Unrelated, but User:Pro Elite Fan Man is  Likely as User:Temporary for Bonaparte on both technical and behavioral evidence. --MuZemike 23:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Should I re-open the SPI on User:Temporary for Bonaparte and add User:Pro Elite Fan Man ? Mtking ^(edits) 23:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

No, I'll make the block myself. --MuZemike 23:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

MuZemike, thanks for taking care of this mess for us. If I'm allowed to ask (or if you're allowed to say) is User:Temporary for Bonaparte and User:The Bachmann Editor Overdrive believed to be two different editors? I'm just trying to mentally keep track of the sock masters, which is getting more and more difficult to do. :/ --TreyGeek (talk) 23:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there is a possibility that they are also the same person. --MuZemike 23:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Help request re Warriorboy55 and Allied Artists International

I was on Warriorboy55's talk page that you had experience a while back like I am having now, so I am asking you and Jayron32 for assistance, since you already know the editor. Warriorboy55 created a false article to create the false impression that Allied Artists International has anything at all to do with the historic movie companies of the past, using as the only sources self promoting web pages, or sources on the historic movie company, which do not mention the KImball Dean Richards company. It does not, and there is no source to support the way the article was. I am mentoring a new editor on reliable sources. All of the unreliable sources, and information on Monogram Pictures and Allied Artists Pictures Corporation were removed, as being unrelated by any source to Allied Artists International. Can you participate at the noticeboard discussion here[18], since you already have background, and should be able to quickly make an opinion of what is really going on. In over 10,000 edits, I have never had to request an admin noticeboard discussion before this time. Thanks. PPdd (talk) 07:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism.

Hi MuZemike. This IP from Ireland is adding weird stuff, I guess.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.46.66.197
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.43.201.22
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.46.65.96

--Hydao (talk) 12:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I would act on it, but I'm not sure if it's disruptive, though it is bizarre. --MuZemike 22:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

ACC backlog

If you have a moment, it would be appreciated, thanx Mlpearc (powwow) 21:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I thanked you earlier on IRC just to find you weren't there so, Thank you much for clearing the backlog. Mlpearc (powwow) 00:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello MuZemike. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 23:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

74.163.16.52

Will the range block also cover 74.163.25.91? He appears to be the same user. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

It should, as that was the IP that I placed in my IP range calculator. --MuZemike 23:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Yet another rangeblock, eh? The last one was in the 184.44 range is also still in effect until Sep-2012 (of course, in addition to the community ban). Who wants to bet he'll pop back again in the 98.71 range? Salvidrim! 00:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Range Block Question

Give the block on 131.123.122.38 and the edits by 131.123.123.124 is there a case for a block on the later and/or a range block. I am asking you given your familiarity with the MMA socks and the fact I know policy means you can't link IP's to named accounts. (I will let Jayjg know of my post here). Mtking ^(edits) 20:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Rangeblocked with a {{checkuserblock}}. --MuZemike 20:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Mtking ^(edits) 21:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Centrx

Not banned in this case. Just blocked. Hopefully someone might know him IRL, and have some clue what's happened to the poor guy. Talkpage access was yanked because ... well you must have seen what he was posting. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:44, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I figured because he's now indefinitely blocked with talk page revoked and only possible appeal is through ArbCom, I felt it was safe to say that he was considered banned. We can wait for the possibility of a coherent response, though. --MuZemike 00:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

New IP

This may be a whack-a-mole but Special:Contributions/92.9.134.103 quacks as one of the MMA editors, is a rangeblock also called for in this case ? Mtking ^(edits) 01:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for blocking that talk vandal. ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 17:44, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Frank H. Reid article deleted

You deleted the page Frank H. Reid. From what I can understand of your post someone who had been banned created the page. The problem is that the page and it's content was perfectly good. I have edited that page and used it as a link on at least one of the articles I am watching. I would at least like to copy what was deleted and create the page under my name. I see by all your deletions that you do this on a daily basis. I'll be damned if I'm going to edit any more articles until I can be sure someone, such as yourself, will not come along and delete all my hard work. I want some answers. Jeff Smith (talk) 00:07, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

First off, nearly all of the creations by this user has been ripped from other sources directly, which was why this user was indefinitely blocked in the first place; see Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Scarfaced Charley for more information. As such I will not restore the article as-is on-wiki; if you wish to recreate the article in a way such that the information is being directly copypasted from other sources, feel free to do so. Moreover, I fail to understand why you call it "all your hard work" when, given the copying done, it wasn't even your (or any other editors') hard work in the first place – aside from the original authors of the sources in which the information was ripped from.

All that said, I can email you a copy if that works for you, which you can use that to work on it offline and then recreate it without the copyright violations or plagiarism. --MuZemike 00:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I study Alaska history. There is not that much written about Frank H. Reid. I saw nothing this person stole from another location. Are you assuming parts of the page were plagiarized or can you show what parts were stolen? Yes, send me a copy of the page to jsmith@soapysmith.net. You will need to let me know what was stolen so I don't use it too. Jeff Smith (talk) 00:28, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I will get that emailed to you; I'll use the Special:Emailuser feature to do that (didn't need to give me your email address). --MuZemike 00:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

And to let any other editor know who may come here wondering about any other articles that I have recently deleted, the same applies as to what I have said above. --MuZemike 00:25, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't you have to prove, or at least show, that an article was plagiarized before deleting it? We as editors are expected to show sources for our facts so why not you have to show what was stolen on the Frank H. Reid article? If you indeed do have that right to delete, on your word alone, then it makes editing on Wikipedia rather risky knowing that at any time someone may come along and delete the page without reasonable proof. Please show what exactly was plagiarized? Thank you. Jeff Smith (talk) 00:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

However, the user has willfully abused multiple accounts and been evading block to keep recreating articles in which many of them have already been shown to have been plagiarized. This user is not trusted to create anything for this reason. Again, you are free to recreate the article. If you still disagree, then you can request a review of my deletion(s) at deletion review, which I will interpret as a challenge of the block on User:Scarfaced Charley. Regards, --MuZemike 01:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for sending me the Frank H. Reid article. At your request I changed the "biography" although nothing indicates that it contained any plagiarized material as you assumed.Jeff Smith (talk) 01:30, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. Apologies for any inconvenience that I may have caused. --MuZemike 01:31, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Apology gladly accepted and I ask that next time, before you delete an entire article, please verify that the information was plagiarized. Don't assume. Thank you. Jeff Smith (talk) 19:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmm...

Obviously not you, I assume. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 20:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe Mister Mxyzptlk is now editing Wikipedia :) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 20:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Deletion

I noticed you deleted 2012_Virginia_Beach_F/A-18_crash, saying "Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban". Was that the only reason? If there were no content reasons, can the article be recreated by non-banned users? If so, could you provide me with the content that previously existed, as a good start off? (I will of course make sure to use only the encyclopedic portions of it) VR _talk 21:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Any non-banned user is free to recreate the article. I would be able to email you a copy of the article to give a start on that, if that is OK with you. --MuZemike 22:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that would be great. Thanks, VR _talk 13:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

ok ..

.. that kind of surprised me. I'm not used to seeing you react that harshly. (link) Definitely a problem there, just that your post caught me off guard a bit. — Ched :  ?  22:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

One of the things in which I have zero patience for is people who insist on acting like Veruca Salt. --MuZemike 22:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

You have been reported to AN3

You have been reported to AN3 by a probable sockpuppet (See here). I am not 100% certain it is a puppet, but you may want to take a look. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Not probable, but  Confirmed (and hence blocked). --MuZemike 01:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I also removed the report as blatant disruption. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Why did you do that?

What you said to me was very rude and against Wikipedia guidelines. Please apologize. Plmnji (talk) 04:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

What MuZeMike said is correct -- you do possess ownership of any page on Wikipedia, including your userspace. Salvidrim! 04:55, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

There is rarely a need for an apology unless profane language is involved...--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I am correct in that nobody owns anything here on Wikipedia; please see our ownership policy for details. Our Creative Commons license requires this. If you cannot understand this, then you will not bode well here. --MuZemike 07:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

31.193.133.0/24

Hi Mike. I'm seeing interesting things on 31.193.133.0/24, including the rDNS for 31.193.133.161, but I can't really nail it down properly. Do you want to take a look with your magic eyes? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:57, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Restored article

• 2012 Virginia Beach F/A-18 crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi, I've restored this article because the deletion was an obvious and unequivocal error. There were many edits by good faith editors, so the article was not a G5 speedy candidate. G5 says "Pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and which have no substantial edits by others. " (emphasis added) As the risk of harm from restoring the article seems very remote, I've done so expediently because this is a hot news story and a lot of people will want to work on the article this weekend. Best regards, Jehochman ^Talk 18:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The talk page is still deleted. I just thought I would let you know.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for mentioning that. I restored it too. Jehochman ^Talk 21:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I will request an unban/unblock of User:Ryan kirkpatrick, then. --MuZemike 22:22, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

While you are at it, can you also bring back the picture of Frank Reid when you deleted the Frank H. Reid article? Thanks. Jeff Smith (talk) 01:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I see that blocks and bans are virutally meaningless now here. That is, it doesn't matter if a block is made – once that user gets around it, we have lost that battle. --MuZemike 03:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

If a ban/block evading user makes a good edit, destroying that edit only means that you're continuing to allow that editor to harm the encyclopedia. Salvidrim! 03:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The article in question was edited by others. Their contributions should not be destroyed for the sake of blocking one bad editor. G5 simply does not apply when others have edited. Jehochman ^Talk 21:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Not significantly enough, though, in my view; there has to be other significant edits aside from filling in a couple of references or some minor copyedits. But I suppose the community will continue to pretend that Ryan kirkpatrick is still banned when, in actuality, he is not, basically another example of saying one thing and then doing another. This is what happens when you place the encyclopedia over the integrity of the community – the hard-working editors who do build and maintain the encyclopedia in good faith get trampled on. --MuZemike 21:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I have a tendency to place the encyclopedia before the community; I thought this was the intention behind the entire project? To build an encyclopedia, not an editing community. The encyclopedia's priorities should take precendence over those of the community. Penalizing the encyclopedia to benefit the community is probably not something desirable. Salvidrim! 02:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

What penalty? This particular article clearly met G5. Despite Jehochman's protests, the addition of one reference to an article does not constitute a substantial addition by other editors. It's important to ensure that the work of banned editors does not get included, as to do anything else simply rewards them for ban evasion.—Kww(talk) 02:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm speaking in broader terms; I would not say I am intimately familiar with this particular article. Allowing good edits to stay despite the fact that the editor behind them is banned may be perceived as a "reward" for ban evasion; however it needs to be carefully weighted, as the removal of these good edits ultimately harms the encyclopedia. To be perfectly fair, I know MuZeMike is not only right and doing this but it is also his duty; I've even defended his actions on my own talk page not an hour ago. I'm mostly voicing concern about the underlying principle, and I know this talk page is not the best venue for such a discussion; I'm still trying to form a more concrete idea before I form any kind of real proposal. Sorry for the bother. :) Salvidrim! 03:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion is not for arguable cases. There were edits by other editors, so G5 did not apply. A plausible case could be made that the topic was notable, and this is now under discussion as it should be. Nothing in the article was defamatory or mis-informative, so there was no urgency to delete it. We should not reward banned editors by giving them attention. Going around deleting potentially useful articles to spite a banned editor who created them, while discouraging good faith editors who've tried to improve those artices, is a terrible idea. Far better to ignore who created an article, and focus on the question of whether the article is encyclopedic, or not, and whether good faith editors are working on it, or not. Jehochman ^Talk 13:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism

Please be more careful with deleting. Thank you!! Montell 74 (talk) 20:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. If you're thinking of the immature moron(s) trying to impersonate me at WP:AIV (see [19] and [20]) those weren't me. --MuZemike 22:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I see. Sorry for that. I was automatically redirect to your talk page. So I thought is was you.Montell 74 (talk) 22:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

No need to apologize, that's fine. It's not your fault. --MuZemike 01:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

A note to this impostor: People are seeing right through your edits. If you have a beef with me, tell me directly instead of acting like a childish coward. --MuZemike 19:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

a Barnstar

		The Checkuser's Barnstar
		For clearing again the CU backlog in the ACC tool. mabdul 19:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't even know one such barnstar existed :) --MuZemike 19:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Closure to an SPI

Hey, is there any way we can bring closure to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Padmalakshmisx? I mean, the user doesn't know how to take a hint and even takes joy in disruption and incivility. I don't know, is there something we can do so that the guy can never create an account again? It beats users having to create SPIs every now and then. Lynch7 14:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Tnxman307 blocked an IP to prevent new users from registering accounts, but that is really all that can be done. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Something like a rangeblock maybe? (Please forgive me if I'm sounding foolish , I'm not the best at computers/networking etc). Lynch7 14:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry

I forgot to uncheck the "notify creator if possible" box when doing that. I really wish TW wouldn't make that redirection.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Shame on you, Jasper. ;) Calabe1992 22:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mataan cabdule and User:Mataan30

Hi MuZemike! On the most recent SPI case for this account, you indicated you were going to block Mataan30 as a block-evading sock. However, I don't think you did, and the sock is continuing to post gibberish. Singularity42 (talk) 22:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

No, I didn't. Now it is. --MuZemike 22:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Personal attack

You're being attacked by 64.107.219.140 on User talk:64.107.219.139. Smells like a sock of someone you blocked. I warned .140. Meters (talk) 17:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Tailsman67

Currently de facto community banned, under two rangeblocks applied by you, AniMate asked me to notify you, back on 98.71.48.246 (talk · contribs · info · WHOIS). See User:Salvidrim/Tailsman67 for more info. Salvidrim! 19:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Talk Page

Hello. I am not sure why you deleted my talk page, but I would like to have it restored please. Thank you. Technology Wizard (talk) 05:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Simply seems all pages created by User:Hoyle Casino Man were simply deleted without further verification as per procedure on banned editors. It is likely that the account was simply the first to edit your talk page, hence the deletion; it probably will be restored (minus the initial comments by the banned editor) without problem. Salvidrim! 06:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Good lesson there Technology Wizard. Always be the first person to write on your articles TALK page, even if you just put a period mark there. It could keep it from being deleted by these administrators, unless of course, you yourself get banned. Jeff Smith (talk) 06:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

All it was was a welcome message on your talk page, nothing else. There is nothing to be gained from restoring it. --MuZemike 07:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Bunco man, if you have nothing helpful to say on my talk page, please refrain from saying it. I know you don't like me one bit, but that doesn't mean you get to rub it in my face every time thereafter the incident above. --MuZemike 07:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, to rectify the situation, I have placed a more personal welcome from me on your talk page. --MuZemike 08:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

ConfirmAccount extension

Hey :). You're being contacted because you are involved in the ACC process, or participated in the original discussion in '08 about the ConfirmAccount extension. This is a note to let you know that we are seeking opinions on switching this extension on, effectively making the ACC process via the Toolserver redundant. You can read all the details here; I would be very grateful if people would indicate how they feel about the idea :). Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BigzMMA

You may want to have a look at this. Mtking ^(edits) 23:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Can you have a look at User talk:86.135.85.88#For whoever is reading this, thanks. Mtking ^(edits) 13:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

SPI

Hi. Regarding this SPI case which you were active in a few days ago, could you take another look? There are some other accounts that have turned up at the same debate and are causing similar disruption. It's fairly urgent as the debate is ongoing, but there's a bit of a backlog at SPI. Could you take a look? Thanks Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 13:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for not getting to it this weekend, as I was out of town. Looks like Elen of the Roads got the latest sock this time around. --MuZemike 18:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Wedgie75

You blocked Wedgie75 (talk · contribs) for abusing multiple accounts. Can you then close the SPI case I opened against him? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Already closed. --MuZemike 18:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Dacodava

You blocked User:Readder a few days ago as a sock of the above. He is continuing to use IPs within the same range -

• 79.112.27.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 79.112.11.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log))

to circumvent his block and revert to his preferences. Is a rangeblock possible, and do I need to open a new SPI? RashersTierney (talk) 17:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

There certainly is, and 79.112.0.0/19 has been blocked 1 week. --MuZemike 18:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. RashersTierney (talk) 12:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

CU block unblock request

207.62.246.67 part of a rangeblock 207.62.246.67. Can you take a look? - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I've left a note on the IP's talk page. --MuZemike 18:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Disney Parks articles and the Jonathon Yip sock

Do you really feel that those articles needed full and complete protection? Wouldn't it be less disruptive to just block those socks on site, rather than to fully protect a large number of articles. The articles within the range of the Jonathon Yip socks are much broader than the few that were fully protected. What happens when the full protection ends and the socks return? Another month? 6 months? A year? The sock puppetry has been going on for a long time. I doubt that a 3 week full protection will deter the sock master, given that he/she is already willing to create an account and wait the required time to edit a semi-protected article. Don't get me wrong, I'm well aware of the disruption that this sock master has created on those articles, as I have been one of the editors who has been fighting this sock puppetry for a while, but it doesn't mean that we should create an even larger disruption by fully protecting articles in order to temporarily stop another disruption.--JOJ ^Hutton 21:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Then there is absolutely nothing else we can do to stop Jonathan Yip; as such, it might be better to give up entierly and unblock him as he is unblockable. --MuZemike 21:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Thats the nature of sock puppets. They evade blocks, but we really can't have those articles fully protected indefinitely to stop the sock master from editing. That would create an even larger disruption than the sock puppets are creating already. I realize that a full protection seems like a good idea now, but he'll just come back when its over. Then what? Can't keep fully protect those articles over and over again. Best to have lots of eyes on the pages, including eyes with admin tools, and simply have the socks blocked on site.--JOJ ^Hutton 21:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, then, I've unprotected all three articles. I would urge against semi-protection, as that will prevent new users and IPs from editing, as well. I suppose, after my failed proposal to unban and unblock User:Ryan kirkpatrick, the editing community would rather pretend that users are blocked and banned while they continue to flaunt said blocks and bans and would rather indefinitely engage in the "wash-rinse-repeat" cycle than try to put any definitive stop to the socks. Perhaps it's the desire to have a completely open encyclopedia, but remember "anyone can edit" is a double-edged sword – anyone can also abuse the encyclopedia. --MuZemike 22:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I was reading the "Unblockable" article you linked in your previous edit summery. So true, so true. But I digress.

Thanks for removing the full protection. As for the semi-protection now in place, its not really a big obstacle for new users to get over the 3 days, 10 edits threshold, as we have already seen with the Jonathon Yip sock puppets. A full protection, although warranted in some cases, tends to be a bit more disruptive than a general semi-protection. If it wasn't, then more articles would be fully protected more often. By my interpretation of WP:FULL, full protection should only be used in the most extreme cases, where all other avenues have been attempted. As it goes right now, the "block on site" avenue seems to be doing the trick. Its not stopping the sock master from returning, but there are plenty of editors who are aware of this guy and what his/her edits look like.

I hope I didn't add to any frustration that you may have been feeling about something else. I wasn't aware that there was another situation that you had been dealing with, ergo, the Ryan Kirkpatrick situation. Not really sure what was going on there, but thats Wikipedia for you. Its not perfect, but its what we want to make of it. Its usually not worth getting too frustrated over what happens on Wikipedia though. I like to keep in mind that editing Wikipedia is just a simple fun hobby of mine, and I try not to take things to seriously or too personal.

Remember were both on the same side and if I see any of these stinky socks again, ill keep you in mind as a good admin to inform. Hope your day is great. Cheers.--JOJ ^Hutton 22:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

You're invited to Wiki-Gangs of New York @ NYPL on April 21!

Wiki-Gangs of New York: April 21 at the New York Public Library

Join us for an an civic edit-a-thon, Wikipedia meet-up and instructional workshop that will be held this weekend on Saturday, April 21, at the New York Public Library Main Branch. Venue: Stephen A. Schwarzman Building (NYPL Main Branch), Margaret Liebman Berger Forum (Room 227). Directions: Fifth Avenue at 42nd Street. Time: 11 a.m. - 5 p.m. (drop-ins welcome at any time) The event's goal will be to improve Wikipedia articles and content related to the neighborhoods and history of New York City - No special wiki knowledge is required! Also, please RSVP!--Pharos (talk) 18:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Abuse Filter on the Article Feedback Tool

Hey there :). You're being contacted because you're an edit filter manager, At the moment, we're developing Version 5 of the Article Feedback Tool, which you may or may not have heard about. If you haven't; for the first time, this will involve a free-text box where readers can submit comments :). Obviously, there's going to be junk, and we want to minimise that junk. To do so, we're working the Abuse Filter into the tool.

For this to work, we need people to write and maintain filters. I'd be very grateful if you could take a look at the discussion here and the attached docs, and comment and contribute! Thanks :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

A Stigg is not a Stig

Hi, Mike! I discovered something that needs a bit of admin attention, and couldn't decide if it's ANI territory or just where it belonged. The British TV show Top Gear has a character called The Stig, an anonymous high-speed test driver. A couple days back, a new user registered as The Stigg, and has redirected his user page to the article for Stig. I can't figure out how to revert or un-redirect (sic) it without making a bigger mess given it is the first article on the page, nor am I sure the redirect is even inappropriate. Would you mind taking a look at it, and see if anything needs to be done? I thought consulting a "bull by the horns" admin was probably the best course of action. Thank you! --Drmargi (talk) 08:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

You cannot redirect from userspace to article space. Since the userpage had not content before the redirection, I've simply blanked it. Salvidrim! 14:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The guy is probably a fan of Top Gear and is likely a newcomer to this. Let's be patient here (mind WP:BITE, that is ). --MuZemike 00:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's kinda what I figured. Something like ANI seemed like killing an ant with a nuke, so I thought I'd just check in with you rather than screw up a revert ( my biggest worry), and held off posting on his talk page. --Drmargi (talk) 00:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:HasperHunter / User:38.114.81.204. Thank you. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• Aye - it would be useful for you to comment here, because I was about to drop the block button as well. Black Kite (talk) 02:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Really?

So can you please make this guy stop vandalizing the GDP Nominal page?Soulflytribe (talk) 06:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Whatever disagreement you have with him and on that page does not excuse you from placing the word "motherfucker" on his userpage. Even if he is inserting incorrect information, you should still not be doing that. If that is the case, then the stuff has been reverted, and you need not worry about it. Lashing out like that in the manner that you did is inappropriate and unhelpful. --MuZemike 06:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

This guy every day puts Russia as the second richest country in the world. There is simply no way of making him stop. Soulflytribe (talk) 14:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

63.3.19.129

Can you have a look at this ip's edits, I suspect I know which editor it is, I also received via e-email a password reset from this ip as well, suspect it also may be ScottMMA. Mtking ^(edits) 22:33, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

IP blocked 3 years due to long-term abuse; essentially nothing good has come from that IP. And yes, I know who this is. --MuZemike 22:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, is there anything I need to do about the password reset request from him ? Mtking ^(edits) 23:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Just ignore it. Nothing bad will happen unless you actually use that password provided. --MuZemike 23:31, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

User appealing a {{checkuserblock}}

Hi, 166.205.139.113 is appealing your block. As I can't tell what was going on here (I assume this block was to stop puppeting), I'll leave it for you to decide whether he truly means well and whatever disruptive editing he had been doing is in the past. Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

No, that unblock request was appropriately declined. --MuZemike 07:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Heh, it appears that another checkuser reviewed it 4 minutes after I looked at it. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Afghan1974

Hello. On April 22 you semi-protected the War in Afghanistan (2001–present) site for a month and then closed the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Afghan1974. In your CheckUser comment you wrote that the protection quote "will be escalated if need be." What can I do to prevent this in the first place, for I don't want to vandalise nor damage the wiki project? Orion 91.42.37.13 (talk) 12:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is nothing much that you yourself can do. There are a lot of idiots out there who end up ruining things for everybody, as what may have happened here. The only thing I can recommend, if you wish for edits to happen there in the meantime, is to place {{Edit protected}} tag on the bottom of Talk:War in Afghanistan (2001-present) and request changes through there. Again, sorry that this had to happen, but we'll try our best to try to accommodate in the meantime. --MuZemike 18:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

.

this ip is adding FAKE info everywhere, it hurts.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/68.54.132.171
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/68.46.153.198
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/68.39.208.34 ... etc

--Hydao (talk) 15:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Ouch! I have blocked the topmost IP for 2 weeks. --MuZemike 18:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Before I get in too deep...

...is this a checkuser block? I'm about to decline the unblock request as non-responsive anyway, but I don't wanna offer the user any false hope. Tiderolls 23:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

No, that block was from behavioral evidence, as the other socks have been stale. --MuZemike 23:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Tiderolls 23:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

10,000th block

If I counted correctly, this would've been my 10,000th block issued as an admin:

19:24, 22 April 2012 MuZemike (talk | contribs) blocked FukkUrrFeelings (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ({{UsernameHardBlocked}})

--MuZemike 11:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Damn, looks like I have a long way to go. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 11:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations on making your 10000th block! Bmusician 14:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Your userpage

It seems that your userpage is simply a redirect to this page (your talk page). I am not against it but would like to know why you have done it. It is a characteristic that I have only seen in this case. --Drla8th! (talk) 23:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. Perhaps you would like to explain your all-of-a-sudden interest in Wikipedia as of late? --MuZemike 06:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if I offended you. I was just wanting to know more about your type of style. Also, since you were asking, I just like to benefit the entire world. --Drla8th! (talk) 21:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Visibility change on my talk page

Not sure what you intended to do with visibility change on my talk page, but I think that it may have misfired. I think you wiped out the first half of comments by a regular editor by mistake. It makes the rest of what they said not make sense. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Grundle2600 tried to copypaste an entire Free Republic-endorsed version of the Presidency of Barack Obama article onto your talk page. If you further disagree with this deletion, then, by all means, request an unban/unblock of User:Grundle2600 on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (which probably should happen, anyways, since the user is virtually unblockable). --MuZemike 05:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't disagree with such. I was thinking that you missed and instead removed material by Wikidemon but now it appears that I was mixed up. So, all is well. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

173.22.218.139

This user is reminiscent of a blocked MMA editor, can you have a look. Mtking ^(edits) 03:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I cannot do anything there. --MuZemike 05:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

No need to be sorry, just the way the user wrote and the location had the socksense tingling. Probably someone draw here from the bloodyelbow article.Mtking ^(edits) 05:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Opensystem

Hi MuZemike. I think this page should be deleted. This "company" only "developed" 2 games.--Hydao (talk) 14:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

MariaJaydHicky

I saw you got to Special:Contributions/86.182.64.127 while I was away. Is there anything we can do about this range, or is it just too active? Between MariahJaydHicky, CharlieJS13 and Pesf, Tbhotch is taking far more abuse than any editor needs to deal with. It would be nice to be able to reduce the load a bit.—Kww(talk) 20:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Nope, the range is too large to block. The only thing you can do is protect all affected pages. --MuZemike 20:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Non-penetrative sex article again

MuZemike, will you put the article back on semi-protection? As expected, User:Picker78 showed back up not long after the full protection war off. Even if it had stayed fully protected until August 21, 2012, like you originally had it, I do not doubt that Picker78 still would have showed back up. But at least we would have had a few more months before dealing with him again. If you look at the Masturbation article, it's fully protected, an action made by you, and I'm certain that's the only reason he hasn't shown back up there yet. You might want to full protect the Non-penetrative sex article again. Like the Masturbation article, we can have registered editors and IPs request changes on the talk page. If you semi-protect it, Picker78 will likely create an account and wait a few days until he can edit it. Flyer22 (talk) 21:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

There was nothing abusing about the edits I did. I support my edits. Who is Picker78? 79.107.49.18 (talk) 23:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Munster's IPsocks

Hi MuZemike. Thank you for the rangeblock of the 141.. series of Munster's IP socks. It appears that we also have a 71... series as listed at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of JHerbertMunster. Of which, 71.240.218.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) turned vandal as well and got blocked for 31 hours today. Just letting you know in case you can range-block these also. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'm guessing 71.240.217.202 (talk · contribs) is related to this. Calabe1992 02:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Calabe. I think you are guessing right. Just look at this. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Distributor108/User:114.76.220.19

Hi. A few hours after User:Distributor108 was blocked, you did a Checkuser block on User:114.76.220.19. Distributor108 has now been unblocked, and is asking for the block on 114.76.220.19 to be lifted. Distributor108 did use that address, as is apparent from Talk:Sri Lanka#Wording of economy section, but the IP didn't make any edits just after Distributor108 was blocked. If that's the only overlap, then I'd think it can be unblocked - but with Checkuser evidence you might know of other misdemeanors. Would you mind taking a look, and letting me know if it's safe to unblock? Thanks -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Titleblacklist case sensitivity

Hi. Regarding this edit, the title blacklist is case insensitive, unless you specify the "casesensitive" keyword. Specifying both cases (i.e., "[Cc]" instead of "c") isn't a big deal, but it does appear to be completely unnecessary. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh yeah, forgot about that. Thanks. --MuZemike 19:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow you're quick

I had just filed an AN/I for that PaidEditing guy and I see you have already blocked him before I could put the notice on his Talk page. -- Avanu (talk) 16:14, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

That's from a long-term vandal who's just trying to dick other editors around. --MuZemike 16:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

ViperNerd

Do you think this[21] may be VP? The editing pattern looks similar. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

He has been edit warring with User:GarnetAndBlack (previously suspected as a ViperNerd sock), so I am leaning towards "no". --MuZemike 18:55, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, noticed something today Afghan1974 does not appear to be blocked[22]? Given the sheer amount of socks he had was this an oversight or has he been given a second chance? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

ACC

Just a poke. It has been suggested that you have a look at request 76352. Thank you very much. Cheers. Mlpearc (powwow) 18:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Bigshowandkane64

He's socking again. Frood! ^Ohai _{What did I break now?} 03:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Collateral damage

Hi

We've had an unblock appeal regarding your block of 89.241.160.0/20 for 12 months. It came from 89.241.166.91 - I don't know the history - how do you know this isn't a shared IP address? I've created an account for them as requested but could you recheck your range block as it might be overkill. Thanks. Secretlondon (talk) 03:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

No. He needs to request an account. There is no way that I am reconsidering that rangeblock, given that the said blocked user is EXTREMELY abusive. --MuZemike 18:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Two related IPs blocked as socks of two different editors

I've blocked 63.3.19.130 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) as a sock of A Nobody, you've blocked 63.3.19.129 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) as a sock of someone. Without those magical checkuser powers that you possess, I can't see if there's a rangeblock that would be more effective. My block (and the related block of 24.112.202.78 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))) are open for discussion at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/A Nobody.—Kww(talk) 03:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

In any case, they are all socks of someone, and it looks like the blocks are appropriate. --MuZemike 18:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Should I match the block on 130 to the block on 129?—Kww(talk) 19:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Go ahead – they're both from the same person. --MuZemike 19:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Two open SPI's

There are two open SPI's (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Agent00f & Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BigzMMA), with your knowledge of the MMA socks's can you have a look and see if it may be better to combine them ? Mtking ^(edits) 22:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Your block of User:76.117.171.115

Hi. User:76.117.171.115 has submitted an appeal against blocking. You blocked them saying 'checkuser block' without saying which account they've been linked to. All their edits seem fine at first glance. Can you give me some background? Secretlondon (talk) 02:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll comment on the WP:UTRS request, but this is likely coming from the same person for whom the CU block was intended. --MuZemike 02:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Secretlondon (talk) 04:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Could you answer my question on the UTRS request? I need to know which account was the problematic one. Secretlondon (talk) 09:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mr Hamza

The IP in question is actually 210.2.181.98, which has edited today (and is currently blocked), not 119.73.43.142 added later. Thanks, Scopecreep (talk) 17:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah sorry, just noticed you left two comments. Never mind then. :-) Scopecreep (talk) 17:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

MahdiBot

Hi my friend. why my robot has blocked in enwiki? when your partner notice me, im off the robot. so why is blocked?? im want only help to wikipedia world.../Mahdi.hajiha (talk) 12:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not been approved. See Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/MahdiBot_2 Secretlondon (talk) 19:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

yes i see this. but im want unblock the bot. not flag.:)/--Mahdi.hajiha (talk) 08:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The bot has been blocked because it is not allowed to run without the flag. Why would you want the bot to be unblocked if you were not intending to edit with it? Secretlondon (talk) 11:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey

MuZemike, MuZemike ... from where do I know this nickname ? Sir Lothar (talk) 21:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

No, no don't tell me ? WP:VG right ? What happened to your userpage ? Sir Lothar (talk) 21:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I work with WP:VG – not as much as I used to, but I still do. I redirected my userpage to my talk page since the beginning of this year; I suppose I can put that back whenever I feel like it. --MuZemike 17:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of (seemingly) high-quality articles

Hi, I was wondering if you could help me with something, and apologies, as this is going back a year or two. You were responsible for deleting at least one of the articles created by Susanne2009NYC (talk · contribs), who was blocked as a sock (for the sake of full disclosure, I did work with the user at FAC a little- the subject-matter is very interesting to me). However, these included some seemingly high-quality articles- take, for instance, Peter Rabbit's Painting Book, which was a good article, as reviewed by Parrot of Doom. I was wondering if there was a reason beyond the mere fact that the user in question was a sock that these articles were deleted. It seems a shame to lose decent articles, no matter who they were written by. J Milburn (talk) 15:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

First off, sorry for not replying earlier, as I was away this past weekend. If I recall, ItsLassieTime (talk · contribs) has had a long history of plagiarism and copyright violations on many of the articles that user and socks have created; see Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/ItsLassieTime for more details.

Moreover, I have requested reviews of all those articles I deleted at WP:DRV, and they have all been upheld (albeit this was back in 2009 and 2010). --MuZemike 17:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Milkybar

Hi, you left one revision in place: the one that cased all the edit-warring in the first place. This person's name is not mentioned in ref 4, therefore has no place in the article per my notes at WP:RFPP. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I just went ahead and RevDel'd that one, as doing another WP:SELDEL just for one edit would waste an unnecessary amount of time and server resources. As long as I got most of the blatant vandalism removed, I think that's pretty good. --MuZemike 19:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately the name concerned is still in the article. It wasn't in there when the article was protected as a result of that RFPP. Somehow it's crept back in. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Because I inadvertently restored it so that the most recent version was vandalism. That should now be fixed. --MuZemike 20:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you --Redrose64 (talk) 20:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Master not blocked

Hi Mike, This one remains unblocked despite the other socks being blocked recently. Wouldn't the master puppeteer also need blocked?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 21:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

More like...

...warm and feathery [23]. Teehee. Thanks for checking, and for the confirmation. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Muzemike, would it have been proper for to just indef him on site there? I had read many diffs and was better than 98% certain of my conclusion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I checked anyways, hoping for a rangeblock of some sort; I found one, but it's not very populated by him currently, and I think collateral damage would be likely. --MuZemike 23:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Considering the warring, inappropriate threats of impending forceful edits, and talk page comment on the intent to edit against consensus, the combination of that with duck would've clinched it. Indef probably would've been fine. (non-admin butt-in). Equazcion ^(talk) 00:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Again, since there is little oversight if I were to block him and block talk page (the logical choice for a sock), I would want to be very, very sure. I supposed if I were only 90% sure and he was really causing problems I could short term block and still report. I just haven't figured out all the scenarios yet. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Userfy

Can you Userfy the "Hyefighters" page for me and tell me what I need to put on it so it can stay? --TheShadowCrow (talk) 22:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anything under that title. Can you double-check the spelling on that title, please? --MuZemike 23:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

HyeFighters? Salvidrim! 23:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

My mistake, the "F" is capitalized, as Salvidrim put it. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 01:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)--TheShadowCrow (talk) 01:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Since it was deleted through WP:PROD, I've restored the article as a contested PROD, so an AfD will be needed if further deletion discussion is needed. --MuZemike 00:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Quick question

I have been asked about this block and wondered if you could fill me in on the backstory. Thanks!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I've emailed you the details on the block. --MuZemike 00:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thanks for your contributions. SwisterTwister talk 04:21, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your assessment of The Mystery of the Druids

I'm just wondering, is there anything in particular that is confusing about the gameplay section of The Mystery of the Druids? If there's a term or explanation that isn't quite clear, I can certainly try and explain it more thoroughly. ScottSteiner ✍ 09:01, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

As I mentioned on the talk page, make the gameplay actions more specific, i.e. how do you combine items? It also seems like you can expand on the 2nd half of that section. When I read it, it seems like there is something missing; perhaps I would normally expect more there. With regards to the Plot section, make it more concise; you should be able to cut some stuff out while keep the main aspects in there. --MuZemike 21:01, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Carlito's Way or the Highway Star

Can you have a look at this editors contributions please Mtking ^(edits) 20:48, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked as a  Confirmed sock of Temporary for Bonaparte (talk · contribs). --MuZemike 21:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

given the nature of the contributions can I ask you consider WP:REVDEL them please. Mtking ^(edits) 21:46, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

If you do so, this edit of mine could also be done with. Salvidrim! 23:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Talk page block for 207.62.246.67

Could you please add a userpage block your block of this IP? Meters (talk) 23:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks fo ryour quick response. Meters (talk) 23:21, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Trouted

I know, I know... I can feel your frustration. Now, let me invite you to a good delicious WP:TROUT. The Leffe helps too, you know. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Sleepers

You semi-protected Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Hoang (5th nomination), but it's apparently attracting sleeper socks. Is it worth a check on HouseMoney1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to look for others? —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 09:05, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Well just to note that I now see this after I declined an AIV report and warned ouseMoney1 because of them having a red talk page so if there is more to it go ahead but than a standard aiv report isn't helpful. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Now blocked. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

probable attempt to stuff the nonexistent ballot at AFD

• CobraGlass (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• UsedBeen20 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 209.117.69.2 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 208.54.37.179 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Hoang (5th nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruben Bentancourt

I'm sensing history repeating itself, and I'd like to nip it in the bud. I'd like a quick yeah or nay on whether any of these are sockpuppets. As you can see, if there are then there's at least one attempt to ballot-stuff in an unrelated discussion. Uncle G (talk) 12:39, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• CobraGlass is  Confirmed as banned user Don't Feed the Zords (talk · contribs); UsedBeen20 is  Inconclusive. No comment with regard to the IP addresses, but I strongly recommend a speedy close of that 1st AFD. --MuZemike 21:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I was busy for a day, and when I returned to this I agreed. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 13:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Haters gonna hate

Hi MuZemike, even though I never interact with you, I might bring upon this as a point of concern: ([24]). Looks like you've got plenty of haters online. Just saying. Mr. Wikipediania ^Talk 15:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

That's from a while ago. Anyways, when you're an admin, you tend to attract a lot of enemies; that's just how the game works. --MuZemike 15:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Yep, you've said that right. Mr. Wikipediania ^Talk 15:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Julie Christie

After I reverted Excuseme99 on Julie Christie, there have been IPs restoring the data. I'm not certain if it's someone that doesn't understand reverting edits from banned editors or if it's just Excuseme99 (recently editing as Tradepath8 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) and Milancholiu (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)) restoring his edits.—Kww(talk) 10:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Affected articles are Julie Christie. Jane Fonda, Ann-Margret.—Kww(talk) 12:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Both the above accounts are  Confirmed plus:

• Symbols100 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Matecumbe (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tuvworee (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Whenplace233 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Wellville5 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Orchids7 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

--MuZemike 19:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Seeing as you didn't revert or block any of the IPs, I take it that it would be unjustified of me to do so?—Kww(talk) 02:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, they're already blocked. --MuZemike 13:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

He's back... Again

In March, you had indefinitely blocked both User:Money220 and User:Money2200 after he evaded his previous bans as User:Davis100 and User:Davis1000. I don't know what guys problem is and why he insists on vandalizing pages with false information, but he has come back as an anon, using the IP adress, 174.108.30.126. If you could please put an end to this, it would be greatly appreciated. Live and Die 4 Hip Hop (talk) 18:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

IP blocked, along with DavisJ100 (talk · contribs). --MuZemike 18:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Type 0 and Vita

Hi MuZemike. Remember that IP that lashed out at me on my talk page? Well, as you can see if you look at his contributions, he's making a big fuss in a number of places, and yet refuses to respond on the article talk page, or to me in general. (And yet puzzlingly, has chosen to lash out at Salvidrim, and report him at the COI noticeboard of all places...)

Anyways, he's being difficult, and still reverting despite no one siding with him, and several editors commenting against him on the talk page. I was wondering if you could help at all? Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 21:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'm puzzled indeed, as I basically did nothing but revert him once, inviting him to discuss. That's it.. :| Salvidrim! 21:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, given that I have tried to start discussion on the talk page and given my view on the content, I really can't do anything on the admin side as I would be involved. That said, I do forsee a block if the IP continues to be obtuse. --MuZemike 21:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah right, that would qualify as involved. Oh well. You're right though, given the IP's hasty, agressive nature, and poor grasp on policy, its probably only a matter of time... Sergecross73 msg me 22:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Request--this is important

This is User:Djathinkimacowboy (indefblocked, and no, I am not trying to circumvent the block) with only one request: please remove the photo that is seen on my page[25]. I DO NOT want that to remain there. The rest is OK as-is but NOT that photo. Thanks.75.21.155.84 (talk) 12:40, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for not returning sooner. TParis has handled this for me, so thanks anyway for your time. Please note I have a dynamic fluctuating IP.75.21.100.24 (talk) 14:45, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

207.62.246.0/24

We've had a UTRS appeal re: your block of [Special%3ABlockList?wpTarget=207.62.246.152&limit=50 207.62.246.152]. You've blocked the entire San Francisco public library system. Your reason given is checkuserblock but without any details I cannot see which account or vandal this refers to. This means no-one can see if it's proportionate. The UTRS number is 1670 which has the librarian's contact details. Secretlondon (talk) 01:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you could ask the SF library community to hunt down the sockmaster. Once he's been banned from the libraries, then they could have their IP's back. (A fantasy, I'm sure - but a good one.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

If it's a {{checkuserblock}}, then, unless it is publicly known or is irrefutably clear who the blocked user is behind that range, I cannot disclose that per the WMF's Privacy Policy, neither here nor on UTRS. Until this user ceases his vandal activities from that library, other people will need to request accounts in the meantime. --MuZemike 01:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Note

Before I go schlepping over to ANI, I must ask you... Does this qualify as "attempted outing"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

If such username existed. --MuZemike 00:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I see. Well, there's something odd about Lego's approach to things, but we'll see how things flow along. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I see some possible WP:COMPETENCE issues from looking at the contribs, but that is all that I can see without looking at CU for anything (which I am not going to do at this point). --MuZemike 06:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Rogereeny. P.S. I think you're missing part of the quote for the gun: "... Well, do ya... Punk?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I was sure that I was accurate from the introduction sequence from the film Magnum Force. --MuZemike 06:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

According to the WikiQuote page on Dirty Harry, here's the full quote:

I know what you're thinking. "Did he fire six shots or only five?" Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being as this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question: "Do I feel lucky?" Well, do ya, punk?

Salvidrim! 06:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the ubiquitous quote from Dirty Harry. However, the intro quote from Magnum Force describes more succinctly about that gun (and Eastwood's ensuing legacy as Dirty Harry) than the more well-known one at the climax of the first film. That and the opening theme song to Magnum Force kicks all ass. --MuZemike 06:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

And I'm ashamed to admit I've forgotten which film another famous Eastwood quote came from: "Go ahead... Make my day!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

99.231.172.215

Just wondering considering that I haven't seem him use any other IPs and such. Elockid ^(Talk) 11:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Fragments of Jade sockpuppet?

Hi. After the protection placed on Silent Hill: Downpour expired, Fragments of Jade (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has possibly returned, this time as the IP 77.43.174.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Can you please do something about this? Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

And another one: 116.212.106.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 May newsletter

We're halfway through round 3 (or the quarter finals, if you prefer) and things are running smoothly. We're seeing very high scoring; as of the time of writing, the top 16 all have over 90 points. This has already proved to be more competative than this time last year- in 2011, 76 points secured a place, while in 2010, a massive 250 was the lowest qualifying score. People have also upped their game slightly from last round, which is to be expected as we approach the end of the competition. Leading Pool A is Cwmhiraeth (submissions), whose points have mostly come from a large number of did you knows on marine biology. Pool B's leader, Grapple X (submissions), is for the first time not our highest scorer at the time of newsletter publication, but his good articles on The X-Files and Millenium keep him in second place overall. Miyagawa (submissions) leads Pool C, our quietest pool, with content in a variety of areas on a variety of topics. Pool D is led by Casliber (submissions), our current overall leader. Nearly half of Casliber's points come from his triple-scored Western Jackdaw, which is now a featured article.

This round has seen an unusually high number of featured lists, with nearly one in five remaining participants claiming one, and one user, Muboshgu (submissions), claiming two. Miyagawa's featured list, 1936 Summer Olympics medal table, was even awarded double points. By comparison, good article reviews seem to be playing a smaller part, and featured topics portals remain two content-types still unutilised in this competition. Other than that, there isn't much to say! Things are coming along smoothly. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

School IP with logged-in a/cs blocked

User Stevoisiake (talk) asked whether the block on his school IP 66.206.115.182 (talk) could be altered to allow him to edit logged in, but I see from the block log that you specifically changed the block on 18 Mar to prevent that. Stevoisiake has not many contributions, but they don't seem unconstructive; I wondered what happened to make you change the block and whether that would be a reason against giving him IPBE. JohnCD (talk) 20:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Go ahead and give him an IPBE. Students are bringing accounts from home to be disruptive. --MuZemike 20:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, done. JohnCD (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Can you keep an eye on this user

Hi,

Can you have a look at/keep an eye on JonnyBonesJones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) something about the speed out of the blocks has my MMA-SPA block evasion radar twitching, however can't quite work out which one it might be, if you have any thoughts let me know and happy to file an SPI. Mtking ^(edits) 01:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

MuZemike (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Oh noes! What will I do? --MuZemike 21:30, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Obvious troll, talk page access and email removed Jac16888 ^Talk 21:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I know what I will do: I will block Professorscrewloose (talk · contribs) and ForsNeilth (talk · contribs); that'll show 'em! --MuZemike 21:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Check that guy, because he smells like a sock.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Review denied. You probably earned it ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I know. I'll go edit an article right now. Surely I can do that while "blocked". --MuZemike 22:20, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

24.189.37.87's edit and warn.

Hello, in this edit you reverted 24.189.37.87 but did not warn him/her on him/her user page. I am wondering the reason for that. Tideflat (talk) 03:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

My "warning" approach on Huggle is a little more avant-garde when most others. I tend not to warn on the first instance, as I find that many instances of vandalism are one-time. Now, if that same user repeats, then I would likely warn, though I give a non-canned, more direct warning, basically telling the user to "knock it off". If the user keeps repeating, then I'll just block, plain and simple; when it gets to that point, the user is obviously not going to stop until blocked, and there is no purpose in giving any other warnings. --MuZemike 20:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Square iNola?

I indeffed them earlier this morning for moving Daniel Case's pages, and the obsession with colors makes me think this should be someone I know. Behavior ring any bells to you? Asking here because without knowing who they remind me of I can't really open an SPI. Thanks! Syrthiss (talk) 13:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Square iNola (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

 Confirmed as a sock of Endingsesame (talk · contribs). --MuZemike 20:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much! Syrthiss (talk) 14:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Nasty little shit

You nasty little shit. I'm gonna fucking get you for this! 2.123.145.146 (talk) 19:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Bring it. --MuZemike 19:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Why did the IP have to nowiki to write shit? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I imagine to evade filters and bots. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Best. Unblock review. Ever: [26] - I laughed so much it made my miserable morning all better. bonadea contributions talk 08:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks again for the help at the Final Fantasy Type 0. That IP has been frustrating; I've taken special care in wording it accurately and using sources that are pretty much unanimously considered reliable, and he still goes and removes it with without joining the discussion! Just wanted to let you know I noticed you requested to protect the page, and appreciate your help. Sergecross73 msg me 13:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

User talk:90.222.159.105 needs help regarding block

Hello MuZemike :), need to inform you that this IP address User talk:90.222.159.105 blocked by you as CheckUser block needs a little help regarding their block. Their block log is clear [27] but this page [28] tells that this IP is CheckUser blocked. I therefore request you to clear out this situation as soon as possible. Regards. TheGeneralUser (talk) 19:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Tell him that he needs to request an account via WP:ACC; I am not lifting that block. --MuZemike 22:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Albert14nx05y

Given his promise to evade the block coupled with autoblock #3910115 tripping immediately after I blocked him (indicating that he was editing on another account when I blocked) and again immediately Kuru modified the block, I'm thinking there might be enough here for you to look at.—Kww(talk) 12:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Got another sock and some IPs along with it. If he wants a war, then he will get one. --MuZemike 18:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Hate to be nosy, but what account did you block? All of the blocks that you did before this reply seem associated with this were socks of LungSalad, and, while you protected Talk:Brett Kimberlin due to sockpuppetry, you didn't block any account or IP that has been editing the page.—Kww(talk) 03:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey, guys, just so you the war has begun. Cheers - Albert14nx05y — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.91.193.250 (talk) 18:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

As long as there are open WiFis I will be here. i also have several sleeper accounts that I made at work on the Dept of Defense network. So I dare you to do a range block there. Seriously, Albert14nx05y and A Nobody and others have been here and are here. Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.91.193.250 (talk) 18:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Then bring it. You will lose. I hope your abuse of Department of Defense resources bears no fruit. --MuZemike 19:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Question on the Jonathan Yip sock puppet

Thanks for the block on the sock. I do have a troubling question though. How was it that a 30 minute old new account with less than 10 edits, was able to edit two semi-protected pages? Both Disneyland diff and United States diff.--JOJ ^Hutton 22:42, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

He already busted autoconfirmed; look at the deleted contribs. --MuZemike 22:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't realize you're not an admin :) He had over 10, though. --MuZemike 22:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

But doesn't there need to be a 3 day waiting period though?--JOJ ^Hutton 22:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that works anymore. --MuZemike 23:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Well then I guess WP:Autoconfirmed needs to be updated to reflect that. Not sure why it wouldn't work though, unless there was a policy change that wasn't made public.--JOJ ^Hutton 23:34, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Take, for example, the latest vandal and sock of banned user Bigsean0300 (talk · contribs) (Special:Contributions/Bigsean200400), who tried to ban me without using any tools. He easily busted autoconfirmed there; why, I don't know, because the moron obviously did not realize that my talk page is not semi-protected :) --MuZemike 23:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks like he just cut and pasted all of that from another page. Well I guess your banned (lol). In the end though, it is a bit disturbing that it only took a half and hour to bust a semi-protection. I might begin a thread at WP:AN, just to get some more opinions on this though.--JOJ ^Hutton 23:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

(Talk page stalker) The account was created on 3 June, so the 3-day period was covered anyway. Black Kite (talk) 09:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Joseph Primiani

On 23 November 2011 you deleted Joey Primiani after an AfD discussion. This article was recreated several times until 26 February 2011, after which a new article was created at Joseph Primiani. I wasn't party to the AfD, but from the comments there it seems that, despite the references in the current version, the decision of the AfD would still apply. I was going to nominate it for deletion again, but it has already been nominated, albeit under CSD A7, and deletion was rejected. Does this article qualify for deletion? --AussieLegend (talk) 15:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, if article is significantly different in that the AfD result may have changed, or if different sources have popped up from what could not be found back then, then WP:CSD#G4 would not apply; in this instance, I don't think A7 would, either. When I look at the version before I deleted it per that AfD in November 2011, the problems were notability and some apparent attempt at promotion from looking at the one comment and the tone of the article. It looks like most of the promotion was removed in the February 2012 version; however, I have not looked closely enough at the sources to see whether or not they are covering the person and not merely the products he was involved with.

I don't know if I will get to it today or tomorrow as I am a bit busy IRL, but I will not complain if you or anyone wants to punt this to WP:DRV, since the latest version after my deletion is different and seems to have addressed the overly promotional tone. Notability-wise, it may be a better idea to see what some others think and what the general agreement comes as a result of that. In any case, the original AfD was pretty much unanimous on deletion and probably couldn't have been closed any other way at that time. --MuZemike 21:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Jason West Jones

So one of the admins advised I post here, but not to be too chatty? So, at the risk of annoying you, and please believe that is not my intent? Other than the error of making another account, and I know you may not feel I really thought this account was lost to me? But it took me the better part of a week to get back in. Anyway, still trying to not be "chatty". Do you find error with how my user page is setup now? Thank you for your time. Jason West Jones (talk) 03:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

You're fine, right now. Just stick with this one account and follow the guidelines set on our Wikipedia:Userfication page, and you should be okay. If you have any other questions, please let us know so that we can address them. We also have a wide array of help pages at Help:Contents that may address some of your concerns on how to get around. --MuZemike 03:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Publishing

Is it best to let a article stand for awhile, and let people go over it, maybe build some "talk"? If so, do you know of anything else like that, that is not often brought up to new publishers? Jason West Jones (talk) 03:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

It's normal process. You may also wish to consult our notability guidelines for musicians if you happen to find some coverage that you can use (remember that we need independent secondary sources; official pages don't count). Hope that helps, --MuZemike 21:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Contested Prod

Hi - Myth of Soma, a page you nominated for PROD recently, was contested after deletion so I've restored it. As the notability is still doubtful, you may want to take it to AfD.  An optimist on the run! 09:25, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I may get around to the AfD when I can. --MuZemike 21:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

MuZemike?

I have experianced something terribly wrong. Someone deleted my Figure It Out (Revival) wikipage. Do you know why or who did it? I am just mad cause I worked really hard on it! --Kennster2012 (talk) 21:17, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it might be a better idea to include the information in the Figure It Out article instead of having a separate one? --MuZemike 21:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at ANI on banning LPC

LouisPhilippeCharles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

In the past you have been involved in a block/unblock procedure either on the sockmaster account of LouisPhilippeCharles or an account of one of the sockpuppets. Please see WP:ANI#LouisPhilippeCharles -- PBS (talk) 20:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Why no consensus?

I noticed in this AfD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Astronomical_Review that the original poster pointed out the lack of reliable independent sources per WP:GNG. I noticed no individual actually showed any coverage in reliable sources in the debate. So I was wondering what keep argument led to the AfD being closed as no consensus? The only argument I can see is that we should ignore GNG per WP:IAR (although IAR is for situations where the spirit of the rule should trump the letter of the rule, so I don't see how that applies here, it also seems Uzma Gamal adequately countered this argument). I should mention that I have no intention of taking it to DRV or similar no matter what response you give, but I was curious, Cheers. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Ubisoft Motion Track camera Wii.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Ubisoft Motion Track camera Wii.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello

Please u deleted the page on Patrick Obahiagbon. I really dont know why although I cited my references and it has be categorised into Nigerian Politicians by another admin. Please why did u delete it? *sad* Damoon4all (talk) 13:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The page you created was unsourced, negative, and slanderous. You cannot just link to his Facebook and Twitter pages and exclaim reliable sources; you need secondary sources, and even so, you cannot create pages that are purely negative and slanderous in tone about a living person. Regards, --MuZemike 21:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Deathlasersonline

Just out of curiosity, how did you determine that Deathlasersonline was a sock of User:WOLfan112? I didn't see anything mentioning a connection, and the latter hasn't edited in a month and a half. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 22:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Intially, I was suspecting a possible compromised account. Then, I noticed his usage of Twinkle to welcome random IPs and newcomers immediately after he created that account; see his earliest contribs. A newcomer does not use Twinkle, let alone welcome new users with Twinkle. --MuZemike 22:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, interesting. Looking back at some ANI threads involving WOLfan112, I can definitely see the similarities. Thanks. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 22:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Was wondering

Per your additional action on a recently-blocked account, was wondering why the apparently-related (master?) account has not been blocked as well. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 22:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I think somebody forgot about him, or that Deathlaser fell under the radar enough in that nobody bothered to suspect anything. I won't block the sockmaster; I will leave that to another admin. --MuZemike 22:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I was just curious, thanks for the reply, heh, my query looks related to the one immediately above. I had also noticed that this most recent sock was asking about V.sniper access here which struck me as a somewhat odd request for such a "new/inexperienced" user. Shearonink (talk) 22:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Question!

MuZemike, I have a question. Can I please become an admin? I am very good and I know I was blocked but you can kick me off if I do that again! Please? --Kennster2012 (talk) 14:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Marty2Hotty

Hi MuZemike, following your block of Marty2Hotty (talk · contribs), I ran a checkuser and confirmed your initial findings. In this context, I'm a little surprised that you've unblocked. Could you let me know what changed your mind? Would you object to me reblocking? PhilKnight (talk) 19:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I think there is a false positive there, in which both Marty and Bigsean0300 have been editing in the same location. After I made that block, I think Bigsean0300 then proceeded to create additional accounts to mock and joe job him. That and Marty been around a bit longer, and the unblock requests (UTRS) that I and a couple of the other CUs who have looked at this seem legit. Long story short, I don't think he's a sock. --MuZemike 19:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Trinity

I see that it is protected. However, you don't provide an explanation to what is going on. Who is doing the bad edits? What section is in question. If you do this again, you should provide a detailed explanation on the talk page of the article. That should be your job and obligation since others cannot read your mind and your one phrase explanation is uselessly vague.

I see a minor error. I was going to correct it but then I noticed it was protected. Don't ask me to post the suggestion edit because it is way too much trouble to edit that way.

Cheers.

Auchansa (talk) 03:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

It says in the edit history and protection log why it was protected, which was due to persistent sock puppetry while also trying to add libelous information into the article. You can wait until the protection expires to edit it. --MuZemike 03:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) MuZemike, did you mean to make that full protection? All of the sockpuppetry seems to be from IPs, so I wonder if semi would do the trick. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

What was the libelous information? If I remember to go back to fix minor errors, I can also patrol for such libelous information.

In the future, take the time to write a description in the talk page of what you think is the problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Auchansa (talk • contribs) 03:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Boomerang225

At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive755#Boomerang2 (returning sock of BoomerangWiki) you asked to be informed of any further potential socks. I'd therefore like to draw your attention to Boomerang225 (talk · contribs), which has a similar username and editing pattern as the other socks, though so far hasn't made any overtly problematic edits. Not sure if SPI is warranted at this point, though it is suspicious that they seem to have created a dummy user page—perhaps to keep under the radar. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Further investigation has satisfied me that this is indeed another sockpuppet; the new account has at least twice added the exact same text as the old one. Consider the following pairs of edits: [29] and [30], and [31] and [32]. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that's a fairly obvious sock, in which SPI shouldn't be necessary. I'm giving the admin tools a rest right now, but if any other admin wants to block, they can go ahead. --MuZemike 18:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

OK. Should I make a post to WP:ANI then or is some admin likely to stumble across this post on your talk page? —Psychonaut (talk) 20:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Another likely sock: Boomerang222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) —Psychonaut (talk) 06:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

75.217.47.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is also definitely a sock; it's recently posted the exact same text as Boomerang2 and Boomerang225. —Psychonaut (talk) 18:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

At this point, the article should just be protected. You should be able to get that approved through WP:RFPP. --MuZemike 18:28, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Expired blocks

Should the talk pages of expired blocks be updated (perhaps automatically)? Specifically you (re)blocked 217.218.67.253 a couple of months ago, for a month, but the talk page makes it look current. I knew to look at the block logs, but should the talk page reflect the block has been lifted.

BTW I only see the one Sophie Mirabella edit as bad; a couple of other recent edits have been reversed, but they can easily be seen as OK. (They'd be even more OK if they had edit summaries though!) Mark Hurd (talk) 03:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

It might not be the same person as before. Keep an eye on it, though. --MuZemike 15:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Symphonia End.png)

Thanks for uploading File:Symphonia End.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Protection

Do you think it's OK to reduce the protection on masturbation to semi? It's been full protected for 5 of the 6 months it was originally supposed to be. My understanding is that it wasn't really a content dispute, so much as a sockpuppeter who was willing to go the extra mile to get autoconfirmed accounts. ☮Soap☮ 15:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Then, how is lifting the protection going to improve the situation? As soon as that happens, he will attack the article again. I'm just not seeing how the article can be unprotected and, at the same time, prevent the disruption from occurring. --MuZemike 17:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Recent deletions

I don't know the answer to this, and I can't find out since they are deleted, but did you have a very good reason for deleting: Personal evolution, Honor among thieves, and The Believing Brain? It may be the case that a banned user created valid articles. Greg Bard (talk) 20:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Just as last time, the user was evading his ban in hopes that those articles would stick. I have nothing against anybody else recreating them, so as not to give the banned user the benefit. Otherwise, I stand by the deletions per WP:CSD#G5. --MuZemike 20:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know anything about this user. Furthermore, it shouldn't matter due to the WP:OWN policy. Was there anything wrong with the actual content? If not I will ask you to please focus your efforts on the person and appropriate sanctions that will affect him or her, but no one else. You may have deleted valuable, irreplaceable content. We will never know will we? So that's a big problem. I am sure you are able to "stand by" your edits given G5, however we still need to use common sense first.Greg Bard (talk) 21:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Dozens of Deleted pages?

Hi, I just visited the Wiki. Deletion log, and noticed that there were dozens of deleted pages with your name (tag/username) in front of them. Does that mean dozens of your own pages were deleted or that you deleted dozens of pages? It was an interesting curiosity. Are you a "deletion editor"? :) Thanks! Misty MH (talk) 21:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Did you read the above comvo at all? He deleted them because it was a WP:BANNED editor who made them. --Bsadowski1 21:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I did read/skim it. But I wasn't sure if it was related to what I saw. In any case, should dozens of a banned editor's articles and pages be deleted?? Is that similar to burning all of a heretic's works? :-D LOL. Or, Were all those added AFTER the person was banned? It would seem strange that a banned user could still be making pages, articles, or edits, especially dozens of them. :) (Note: My comment here, I inserted above another user's comment below, whose comment came before mine in time.) Misty MH (talk) 22:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC) Misty MH (talk) 22:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know the answer as to whether this was a good idea or not. Given that all the evidence either way is gone, I have made a proposal to change the policy. What I think happened is a banned user logged on anonymously, and apparently created at least a few perfectly valid articles, which we are brainlessly deleting. Is it even possible for me to know who this banned user is, so I can investigate this situation myself? Articles are property of Wikimedia, not particular users, so there isn't really a sense in which this consists of a punishment of the user. Furthermore NO article should be deleted without reading it, and this policy apparently makes that possible. We should not have a policy that shoots ourselves in the foot.Greg Bard (talk) 22:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Interesting input, and good question. Where did you make the proposal? (link?) Sounds interesting. Thanks! Misty MH (talk) 22:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G5. I don't really believe very faithfully in the political system of Wikipedia. Ordinarily I am very populist, and wanting as many eyes on an issue as possible. So help me out a little, and make it obvious right away if my good faith invitation to the discussion will help or hurt my proposal. Life is too short. Greg Bard (talk) 22:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Where is the discussion, Gregbard? Because I would love to weigh in to say you're completely wrong: if we do not enforce bans strictly, then the ban has no meaning. Banned means banned, it doesn't mean "banned unless you happen to do something vaguely useful". In some cases we have banned people capable of creating good content because they were unable to behave in a manner consistent with all of our rules (gross incivility, excessive ownership, edit warring, etc.). Your asking for a revision is akin to a high school football coach telling an academic teacher that special consideration must be given to Johnny QB because he's so good a football player, and the rules about passing classes don't apply in his case. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Remember, voting is on Wednesday this year. Say listen, the issue is the content. If you have an editor who is a jerk, then by all means punish. PUNISH THEM NOT US. This particular policy makes it possible to delete an article without reading it. I think you have lost your way a bit here. I'm sure you are a wonderful editor, but the position you are putting forward, is what I call "brainless authoritarianism." Criminal justice concerning editors is a very very very VERY low priority. Preserving valid content is a high priority. There are clearly reasonable, and clearly unreasonable cases. All I ask is that people actually use their brains to make the call, rather than brainlessly delete. Read the article first before proposing deletion. It would seem obvious to me, but apparently we actually need to spell this out. I don't know ANYTHING about the user. I take care of articles in the philosophy department, and all of a sudden, some are missing. That's all I know about it, so please cut this out. Greg Bard (talk) 00:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment--I too was a little bit concerned that you deleted all the pages created by Leucosticte (talk · contribs). Some of those pages did have useful content. If you would be willing to userify some of that deleted content (particularly those concerning prison and criminal justice) I would be greatly appreciative, as these pages could be reworked and improved by WikiProject Law. Thank you. Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 00:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Life is tough, and there is no easy answer for dealing with banned users (and "indefinitely blocked by the Arbitration Committee" on the user talk indicates it's a serious case). If an editor wanted to encourage a banned user, there would be no better way than to loudly denounce deletion of their edits. If an editor wanted to drive away one of the few admins who is prepared to take the time to deal with long term abusers, there would be no better way than to post in-your-face opinions on their talk page. People are banned for all sorts of reasons—some of them are really serious and need strong responses because such abusers take any crack of daylight as an invitation to return and return and return. Once accepted as a sometimes "good" editor, they will resume their previous bad activities. Johnuniq (talk) 02:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Johnuniq, I am very troubled by your statement here. I think perhaps you are into the culture here far too deep to see things objectively. You seem to be putting things forward like a Wikipedia Crime Psychologist, and I can't really agree with the validity of your theories. Are you under the impression that Wikipedia administration is so meaningful to people that they are encouraged or discouraged based on this? Really? I think this is highly speculative, and it doesn't really matter because it's irrelevant to the issue. At least it should be. The issue here is the content, not the personalities. I think you have gotten caught up in the personalities and are willing to throw good content away toward those ends. Those are not good priorities. My theory is based on the same principle as one from medical research ethics. While it is obviously horrible that the Nazis experimented on people for research, it would be very very stupid to throw all that data away with the notion of honoring the dead.Greg Bard (talk) 03:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

If I may jump in here again, the CSD:G5 criterion specifies "Pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and which have no substantial edits by others" (emphasis mine). Some of the deleted pages did, in fact, have contributions from other users, including myself. I have no connection to this banned editor; in fact, I was the one who commenced the sockpuppet investigation against Leucosticte. Nor do I have any connection to Gregbard (talk · contribs) above, and I must say I don't completely agree with his point of view. I just don't think useful content should be deleted out-of-process like this, because I feel it hurts the encyclopedia. I think this is a good example of when Ignore All Rules comes into play. Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 04:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

LOL! That's one funny rule, or, er, anti-rule, LOL, or whatever. Misty MH (talk) 06:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Once again, to reiterate, all these creations were by a banned user in violation of said ban, and the ones deleted had no substantial edits by others; that is, I do not consider minor AWB edits or addition of categories to be substantial. A couple of you disagree with WP:CSD#G5 and have started a discussion to remove that criterion, OK. However, keep in mind that supporting its removal virtually removes all the teeth and enforceability of all bans on Wikipedia, making them utterly worthless, as there is no deterrents for them; that is precisely what this certain banned user is hoping for in this very argument and over at WT:CSD. Also, content can be recreated by non-banned users, so the "irreplaceability" argument is also not valid. --MuZemike 18:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

OK then, I'm not arguing to get rid of WP:CSD#G5, but I would like to userify some of these pages to work on them and eventually move them back to main article space. Can you do that, or do I need to go to deletion review for that? Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 00:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for not addressing that earlier. Let me know which articles, and I'll see what I can do. --MuZemike 00:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

OK here are the ones I would like userified:

1. Federal Correctional Complex, Petersburg
2. Special Investigative Services
3. Federal Bureau of Prisons Program Statement
4. Enticement of a minor to engage in sexual activity
5. Clinical population
6. Prison discipline
7. TRULINCS
8. Travel with the intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct
9. Discipline in the Federal Bureau of Prisons

I am not necessarily going to move all of them back to mainspace, as some of them could be better included as sections of other articles. Also when I am finished with them I will cut and paste them into mainspace to get rid of the edit history of the offending user. Does that sound OK to you? --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 01:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

That's fairly reasonable, and I have done that. Please note that TRULINCS redirects to Corrlinks, so there is nothing to restore there. --MuZemike 17:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

OK then, forget that one. Thanks for restoring the other ones to my user space. I will work on them as time permits. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 17:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

SPI close

Hi there MuZemike,

Recently you closed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Dwainwr123 commenting that the IP hadn't edited since the 1st of July. It's my fault that you weren't aware because I hadn't updated the SPI, but in fact the person has been editing Talk:Mitt Romney dog incident regularly since then. I mentioned that it was a dynamic IP in the SPI, but perhaps I wasn't clear that they had been on a different IP almost each time they edited. On the 8th they were on 71.125.68.48, on the 7th it was 71.125.74.154, on the 6th it was 71.125.74.175, and so on. All of the IPs geolocate to New Jersey and I'm sure a CU would confirm the link (though I know you can't publicly link an IP to an account). Anything we can do about this? Thanks! Sædon^talk 02:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Apparently related, you just blocked and tagged a sock that I had checked a couple of days ago (though not in connection to that SPI). I saw nothing conclusive, were there recent tell-tales or did you just know something I didn't regarding the sockmaster? Feel free to email if you want to avoid beans issues. — Coren ^(talk) 16:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I've sent you an email about the issue. --MuZemike 17:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

SPI question

I noticed you recently closed an SPI that was opened on me. Before that case was closed I asked a question on the page regarding a concern about wishing to log some information with a CU that could be accessed in the future if another SPI attack was launched. Obviously, it's not something I care to share in public. Is there a CU email address I could send this too? Thanks. Fasttimes68 (talk) 03:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

You can email me the information, and I'll make sure this gets shared with the other CUs. --MuZemike 17:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I stopped your bot

Hey, I just thought I'd let you know I stopped your bot. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I know I placed the appropriate edit summary in there. I don't know why AWB reverted it back to default. --MuZemike 21:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Sock Handrem has returned

Looks like He's back --Hu12 (talk) 01:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't care

Pfrd and footwiks are my ID. Editing is my just hobboy. I don't want to boast my contributions. I'm not interested in Banstar or any powers in wikipedia. I think You lon on many times on everyday. Your job is wikipedia editor. But I don'log on everyday, So sometimes I forgot my password. So I created manay IDs. If you block Pfrd and footwitks, I don't care... I created new id 03:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Footwiks (talk • contribs)

If you forget so much, then why don't you just edit anonymously? That seems like it would work better for you. --MuZemike 01:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Archived after only a few days???

Wow. I started a section a few days ago about a pile of deleted pages, and all that talk has already been archived by a bot??

I visited the bot page, which says "NOTE: Before requesting automatic archiving on an article's talk page or a Wikipedia forum, please establish a consensus that archiving is really needed there."

Was it really necessary to archive that already? Thanks.

Misty MH (talk) 01:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I find that threads tend to die out after several days, which is why I set my bot-archiving to only 3 days. Other users set theirs to different settings, while others choose to do it manually. For me, I like to keep my talk page clean and free of noise as possible and so that attention is appropriately directed to current threads.

Also, in response to your last question, the need for discussion and consensus on archiving applies to talk pages of articles or other project pages; individual users are allowed to archive their talk pages in just about any way they prefer. --MuZemike 01:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Misty MH (talk) 01:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Noormohammed satya

Hello MuZemike. I noticed that at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Noormohammed satya you recently confirmed the link between two of the accounts and then marked the case as closed. However, you didn't make any comment on any of the other accounts listed in the request. Is it possible you overlooked these and prematurely closed the investigation, or did you indeed investigate the other accounts and find the evidence inconclusive? —Psychonaut (talk) 16:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

No comment with regard to the IPs. --MuZemike 22:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

And the non-IP accounts User:Moviebuff 1990 and User:Thomas.young234 et al.? No comment on those either? —Psychonaut (talk) 07:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

If I didn't mention it, then it's probably  Unlikely if not  Unrelated. Thomas.young234 is too stale now to make any technical connection. That being said, if Thomas is related to all of them (based on other evidence), then we know who the chief sockmaster is behind all of them. --MuZemike 13:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The most recent known Thomas.young234 sock was confirmed and blocked only eight days ago, so I don't see how a connection would be too stale to establish technically. There is ample (but not overwhelming) behavioral evidence linking the two groups of accounts; the only major difference seems to be that the Thomas.young234 socks are slightly more communicative on talk and project pages, whereas the Noor* ones almost never edit outside article space. Technical confirmation would be appreciated. I could add a new section to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thomas.young234/Archive if you think that's a more appropriate venue. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

They're still  Unrelated to each other. Frankly, I found the evidence that you submitted rather difficult to follow, which is probably why I am having a hard time seeing what needs to be checked and what does not. --MuZemike 14:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Filter 341

There's a few false positives (See Bwilkins (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)). Maybe adjust via group rights? Also, it's preventing people from posting to the same page a second time (because their name naturally has already been there once when signing) - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 01:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

It has now been fixed. --MuZemike 01:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Please note that it was a typo that was causing problems. --MuZemike 01:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Ouch. What kind of range was that getting? - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 01:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

It was a syntax typo and not a word typo. Anyways, some particularly nasty stuff is currently being blocked. --MuZemike 01:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Stranded Pirate

I have to say I feel vindicated in my relatively early judgment on SP. That aside, I'm trying to understand how the sock puppet conclusion was reached. I don't see any SPI report on either SP or on the master (at least not searching the archives at WP:SPI). Anything you're able to share with me? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I have blocked his socks in the past, and after observing the exact same behavior as previous socks, I checked and found that he is  Confirmed as User:Albert14nx05y. --MuZemike 02:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

question

I mentioned a blacklisting by you on AN/I: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Spam_filter_gone_nuts - maybe needs an additional whitelisting? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Request for help with unblock request

Hello, MuZemike. I wonder if you would be willing to look at Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/Requests#187.122.136.167. A user has asked for a proxy block to be lifted, and it looks as though it isn't an open proxy. As far as I can see, the block can be just lifted, but a person who did a proxy check suggests a checkuser before unblocking. Perhaps you can deal with it? JamesBWatson (talk) 08:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

That's been satisfactorily dealt with now. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

IP sockpuppet of Fragments of Jade

Fragments of Jade (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has just returned under the IP 67.202.116.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), again appearing to be in New Jersey. She harassed me on my talk page and has left insults in her edit summaries. Can you please do something about this mess? Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• Whatever the history, these personal attacks warrant a strong block by themselves. Salvidrim! 18:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

And two more accounts in addition to my comment above: 67.202.71.173 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and Odekerk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

List of Splinter Cell characters is now full-protected for 1 month. --MuZemike 18:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

Many thanks for your diligence in dealing with sockpuppets! Yobol (talk) 01:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MuZemike. You have new messages at 1Todd1's talk page. -- message posted by benzband (talk) 07:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Airtuna08

Are you able to provide some more information on the case based on what I've posted at User talk:Airtuna08#Checkuser question? Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Non-penetrative sex article -- time limit

Hey, MuZemike. The full protection date is about to expire. Since the sockpuppet never leaves this article alone, and has popped back up very soon after full protection before, I felt that it's best that I leave you this reminder. Flyer22 (talk) 17:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

ACC requests

Hi, MuZemike. I have been asked to let you know that there are two ACC requests that require your attention. See #78660 and #78818. Thanks. NTox · talk 07:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi

An IP address that you recently blocked as being related to a sock[33], is engaged in disruptive editing on Mohammad Mosaddegh, making reverts to remove well-sourced material, without a consensus, while attacking other editors in the edit summaries. [34] I was wondering if you know who the master of this IP is or who is might be using this IP to make these hit-and-run reverts. Please note that he or she has been engaged in what appears to be problematic behavior for sometime now[35], and perhaps a block is due at this point. Kurdo777 (talk) 22:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed page deletion

I dont understand why you want my article to be deleted. I created it yesterday, and am still working on it, because i want to link it to the "history" section of NBA 2K (series). I havent finished working on it yet. Can you take the deletion proposition away? User:Jay Starz (UTC)

As I said before, it is redundant to the NBA 2K (series) article, so you should be editing that article instead. I would also be wary of adding stuff about people in which you cannot verify, as I also mentioned. --MuZemike 21:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

You also need to be aware that you are writing about yourself in a rather in a rather promotional tone. Please read our guidelines regarding self-promotion for more information. --MuZemike 21:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

In any case, I have requested a deletion discussion about the article, which is located at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NBA 2K (history). Regards, --MuZemike 21:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, but that isnt me. I wrote it because i was amazed about the similar name. I wish that was me though. Could you please remove the proposed deletion? User:Jay Starz —Preceding undated comment added 22:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

You wrote that explicitly on your user page; see this version of your page, which you just changed. And no, I am not removing the deletion nomination; you may comment at the abovementioned discussion page, if you so wish. --MuZemike 22:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

A. B. Colton

Hey MuZemike. I'm trying to create a page for A. B. Colton; however, you added colton to the title blacklist with this edit. Can you allow me to create that page? Ryan Vesey Review me! 03:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• Note that I also left a comment at WP:AN#A. B. Colton. Ryan Vesey Review me! 03:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The abuse is pretty much gone, so I removed the entry, allowing you to create the article. --MuZemike 03:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Ryan Vesey Review me! 03:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Smelly ducks, quacking socks

There seems to be a person who likes to:

• Make lots of socks
• Name them Finlay + a somewhat random number
• Vandalise or troll

The latest reincarnation is our good friend User:Finlay0147, but it seems likely that we can indef about 20 accounts on this list. Arcandam (talk) 21:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Not all of them are vandals, and those accounts you listed have all been created at different times. I doubt all of them are from the same person. --MuZemike 22:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I am sure they are not all the same person, but I wouldn't be surprised if about 20 of the 50 are. Oh well, I hope you'll remember the name when Finlay0148 shows up. Arcandam (talk) 02:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 July newsletter

We're approaching the beginning of 2012's final round. Pool A sees Cwmhiraeth (submissions) as the leader, with 300 points being awarded for the featured article Bivalvia, and Pool B sees Grapple X (submissions) in the lead, with 10 good articles, and over 35 articles eligible for good topic points. Pool A sees Muboshgu (submissions) in second place with a number of articles relating to baseball, while Pool B's Ruby2010 (submissions) follows Grapple X, with a variety of contributions including the high-scoring, high-importance featured article on the 2010 film Pride & Prejudice. Ruby2010, like Grapple X, also claimed a number of good topic points; despite this, not a single point has been claimed for featured topics in the contest so far. The same is true for featured portals.

Currently, the eighth-place competitor (and so the lowest scorer who would reach the final round right now) has scored 332, more than double the 150 needed to reach the final round last year. In 2010, however, 430 was the lowest qualifying score. In this competition, we have generally seen scores closer to those in 2010 than those in 2011. Let's see what kind of benchmark we can set for future competitions! As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 22:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Niemti

Hi. Despite Niemti (talk · contribs) being reminded to be extremely polite when interacting with anyone in the article space, I feel that he has again engaged in abusive behavior. These are examples: [36], [37]. Not only that I feel that he is being incivil, as I am trying to calm him down, I also feel that his editing is also tedious, not to mention his poor English grammar. This matches the same modus as the unbanned user HanzoHattori (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). What is the best way to deal with the situation? Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Never mind what I said earlier. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Laszlo C-C

All of these accounts seem to have been registered on 16 Novermber 2011. I'm guessing CU's stale, but it implies that this is one of our long-term trolls: one in particular comes to mind. Acroterion (talk) 03:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I know that. --MuZemike 03:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

VideoGames & Computer Entertainment

According to this you have the June 1995 issue of VideoGames & Computer Entertainment? There should be a review of Cannon Fodder for the Jaguar. Would love a scan/summary if you have it. Thanks, bridies (talk) 05:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Not June 1995, I'm afraid. Basically much of the issues from 1991 and earlier. --MuZemike 17:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Oops, misread. Thanks anyway. bridies (talk) 00:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you do a rangeblock?

This is in relationship to the rangeblock you did at User talk:166.147.112.7, as this user is back at Walum Olum and Talk:Walam Olum with personal attacks and disruption and in fact asking for a range block. See also [38] Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 05:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, should have checked ANI, see [39]. Dougweller (talk) 06:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Revision deletion request

Hi. Can you please revision delete this edit? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Oops, I should have checked Fae's talk page, see this notice. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Deleted information request

Hi there, I noticed from this page that all of the BUAFL teams have had their pages deleted which, I am not contesting. I was wondering if it was possible to get the information back so that it can be put on the GB American Football Wikia? In a lot of cases the British American Football teams and leagues have unfortunately folded due to funding issues and their own websites do not exist (this is why the information was being kept on Wikipedia as well, as it was deemed to be "safe".) There was a lot of hard work put into those pages and Wikipedia's archive is now, unfortunately, the only place it is stored.

Thanks, Jim Jskivington (talk) 09:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding earlier, as I have been very busy as of late. I owe you a response when I get a little more time to sit down and look at them. --MuZemike 03:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Lutrinae

Hello MuZemike, Lutrinae is back as 171.8.66.113 (talk), which you blocked a week ago for a week for block evasion. nableezy - 14:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Request an Account

Hi MuZemike, when you have time, there is a request (https://toolserver.org/~acc/acc.php?action=zoom&id=79284) at Request an Account which Elockid suggested you might be able to shed some light on. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 17:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Question on autoblock

Hello, MuZemike. When I tried to edit under my alternate public computer account, User: Penguins in space, at my school it would not let me, even though the IP (66.210.57.105) was blocked and not my account. I am aware that there has been a sockpuppet issue there. I was wondering what could be done about the autoblock? Editing at school can help me avoid missing important discussions, like I missed this one. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 03:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Does it say you are autoblocked, or simply "You are currently unable to edit pages on Wikipedia"? Either way ip block exemption would solve your problem.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

It says "Editing from 66.210.57.105 has been disabled: You are currently unable to edit pages on Wikipedia" is that a rangeblock or an autoblock? Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 03:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Autoblocks show a message that say it's an WP:Autoblock (see MediaWiki:Autoblockedtext). The block exemption Jasper pointed you to should work fine. You can check to see if your account has been "infected" in an autoblock by checking Special:BlockList (which it isn't). Cheers! --Tgeairn (talk) 03:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. :) I will try block exemption on Monday. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 03:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

First it must be granted by an admin, though that should be a trivial manner especially if one with CheckUser like MuZemike does so.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean? Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 03:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

What he means is that you should read, understand, and Grok the ip block exemption page until you are clear on the conditions and implications of requesting the unblock. Then use the Unblock template from your registered account that is affected and place the request on that account's talk page. You will obviously need to do this from a location that is not blocked. An admin will review the request and decide from there. --Tgeairn (talk) 04:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, ok. I will do that now. Thanks for the help! Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 04:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Please explain your relation to banned user Shakinglord (talk · contribs). --MuZemike 05:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

All I know about him is that he is a sockpuppet who trolled at my school. I don't know anything else about Shakinglord. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 00:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

That's odd. You seem very familiar with the wiki that Shakinglord started, which was supposed "to bring Wikipedia down" but has only attracted an audience of one. --MuZemike 00:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

True, but I have resigned my membership to that Wiki. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 00:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I will make my question more clear: Please explain the connection between your old account and the founder of that wiki. --MuZemike 00:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Not only are the signature names of both these account similar (Olaf the Shakinglord and Robby the Penguin), but unlike most users they use a different name in the sig than the username. Considering this, and the other wiki connection, and the school IP, and that Penguin's first edits were to ANI, and that automated edits began a week after first posting, I think the connection is pretty obvious. And if you want to read into his statement above that the only thing that he knows about User:Shakinglord is that he is a "sockpuppet," it makes you wonder why a user unfamiliar with shakinglord would refer to him as a sock... Sædon^talk 00:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Fine, I give. You got me. I am Shakinglord. I am sorry for deceiving everyone I have worked with on Wikipedia. You may block me, as per my ban, but please note that I feel that I can make good and undisruptive edits to Wikipedia, and I will be requesting my unban on WP: AN. I quit Negapedia because I felt that there was a better way to help Wikipedia than hanging out with trolls. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 01:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

No. You're now getting desperate because summer is ending, and school is soon starting, and you want an account in which to disrupt from school with. --MuZemike 02:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Please clarify what you consider to be dsiruption. I mean no ill will towards you or any of my other fellow editors. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 02:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The same disruption as your "first socks" and then all the continuing ones plus your school's IP. --MuZemike 02:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, my point is, the first socks were the beginning of a downward spiral. That was a mistake that I simply couldn't recover from. In other words, can you explain why I sock? If the socking were to be eliminated, I would be fine. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 02:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

That is something you need to explain to us; we cannot read your mind. The community has banned you to prevent you from socking, and your school's IP has also been hardblocked as a means to prevent that. --MuZemike 02:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

As on ANI, I will explain. My first socks were merely a paranoid test to see if other users would stick up for me. The others were impatient responses. Lessons learned: 1) if you feel unimportant, talk to someone and 2) Be patient, that mistake on article so&so will be righted and bad newpage so&so will be deleted. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 02:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: this

I made some mistakes in that report (don't file them all that often), but that particular page is now archived. I repeated myself needlessly plus forgot the capital L under Suspected sockpuppets: "Ivanthegreatlaw" instead of "IvanthegreatLaw". And User "Ivanthegreat" is (badly) explained in my comments as "Commons User:Ivanthegreat" Commons User:Ivanthegreat who uploaded the pic for User:Monsterbeat (no edits since 2008). AGK is right though, "Ivanthegreatlaw" doesn't exist plus you're right about there is no proof that the Commons user is the same as "One beat wonder"/"IvanthegreatLaw". Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 15:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Earthquake weather

I'm confused by your massive revdeletion at Earthquake weather. Care to explain? -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 07:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Massive spamming. The talk page does not need to be polluted by that. --MuZemike 04:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

YGM

Hello, MuZemike. Please check your e-mail – you've got mail!
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template. — Elockid ^(Talk) 12:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Dries Wuytens

Hi MuZemike. You protected Dries Wuytens as repeatedly recreated by a blocked/banned user. A page on the footballer has been created at Dries Wuytens (footballer). This appears to be from an editor of good standing but I have no background in WP:SPI so I wanted to get your input before it is moved to Dries Wuytens. Thanks. Tassedethe (talk) 23:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

RfC discussion

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#RfC: Top X lists in video games. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Troll sock 99.251.125.65

I noticed that you seem to be an SPI expert. Is there any chance you could help us out with 99.251.125.65, who has been socking and harassing people for 6 weeks and no one can connect them to a master, which is assumed to be Kblott, but I do have another "hunch". Can you please help us find the master? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:17, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Request an account

Hi MuZemike, there is a request on the ACC Interface which DeltaQuad, would like you to have a look at. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 20:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Unblock

is it possible to have my past alternative accounts unblocked? Sheodred (talk) 00:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Given that you used said sockpuppets to evade a block, I'm sorry, but I cannot entertain such a request. --MuZemike 01:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

...and why are you causing disruption with an IP? Are you begging to be blocked again? --MuZemike 02:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 August newsletter

The final is upon us! We are down to our final 8. A massive 573 was our lowest qualifying score; this is higher than the 150 points needed last year and the 430 needed in 2010. Even in 2009, when points were acquired for mainspace edit count in addition to audited content, 417 points secured a place. That leaves this year's WikiCup, by one measure at least, our most competitive ever. Our finalists, ordered by round 4 score, are:

1. Grapple X (submissions) once again finishes the round in first place, leading Pool B. Grapple X writes articles about television, and especially The X-Files and Millenium, with good articles making up the bulk of the score.
2. Miyagawa (submissions) led Pool A this round. Fourth-place finalist last year, Miyagawa writes on a variety of topics, and has reached the final primarily off the back of his massive number of did you knows.
3. Ruby2010 (submissions) was second in Pool B. Ruby2010 writes primarily on television and film, and scores primarily from good articles.
4. Casliber (submissions) finished third in Pool B. Casliber is something of a WikiCup veteran, having finished sixth in 2011 and fourth in 2010. Casliber writes on the natural sciences, including ornithology, botany and astronomy. Over half of Casliber's points this round were bonus points from the high-importance articles he has worked on.
5. Cwmhiraeth (submissions) came second in Pool A. Also writing on biology, especially marine biology, Cwmhiraeth received 390 points for one featured article (Bivalvia) and one good article (pelican), topping up with a large number of did you knows.
6. Muboshgu (submissions) was third in Pool A. Muboshgu writes primarily on baseball, and this round saw Muboshgu's first featured article, Derek Jeter, promoted on its fourth attempt at FAC.
7. Dana Boomer (submissions) was fourth in Pool A. She writes on a variety of topics, including horses, but this round also saw the high-importance lettuce reach featured article status.
8. Sasata (submissions) is another WikiCup veteran, having been a finalist in 2009 and 2010. He writes mostly on mycology.

However, we must also say goodbye to the eight who did not make the final, having fallen at the last hurdle: GreatOrangePumpkin (submissions), Ealdgyth (submissions), Calvin999 (submissions), Piotrus (submissions), Toa Nidhiki05 (submissions), 12george1 (submissions), The Bushranger (submissions) and 1111tomica (submissions). We hope to see you all next year.

On the subject of next year, a discussion has been opened here. Come and have your say about the competition, and how you'd like it to run in the future. This brainstorming will go on for some time before more focused discussions/polls are opened. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Orvilleunder‎

Hi, Muzemike. I noticed a problem with this user and left a note on his Talk page. You blocked him as a sock puppet. How did you spot it? I need to get better at this.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Magic. --MuZemike 15:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Heh, I feel a bit better now, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Members of the South Australian House of Assembly, 1875–1878

any reason I do not understand why it is still in the incubator? It's not complete, but I don't see why it can't be finished in mainspace DGG ( talk ) 04:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree, it can probably be moved. It was there in the first place because it was virtually an abandoned userspace draft, which I moved it somewhere more useful so it didn't get forgotten. --MuZemike 13:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Did you mean to make that move to the mainspace? I ask because it's still in the project-space (though the move interface would be to blame there). --MuZemike 23:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive IP again

Would you mind revisiting this anon account for disruptive editing. Thanks. RashersTierney (talk) 15:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit reverted, and I'll keep an eye on it. --MuZemike 04:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Taking a few days break. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 10:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:18, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Return of Pe

Hello M. As you were the last one to deal with this Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pé de Chinelo/Archive prolific sock puppeteer I thought that I would make you aware that this person has returned to editing today as can be seen by looking at this 187.35.33.40 (talk · contribs) and with this edit [40] they confirm their socking. They also edited from this IP 201.43.152.157 (talk · contribs) a few days ago. Is it possible to hand out a block or would you prefer that I report this somewhere? Thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 21:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Block

FYI, might want to extend 118.102.230.6 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) per ACC #80438. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 07:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Padmalakshmisx

Hello. Did you by chance check 12pavan34 (talk · contribs) in the SPI? He too appears to be connected, and is most likely to disrupt the articles if he is not blocked. Secret of success (talk) 14:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that. He did not appear in my previous checks, and I see the similarity in the username of Pavn123 (talk · contribs), which I blocked over a month ago. That account is now blocked. --MuZemike 15:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Minetest AfD

Hey MuZemike, I nominated the article Minetest for deletion as I noticed that all of the users saying Keep are affiliated with the game. Celeron55 is the game creator, Vanessa is a Moderator and contribute to the games development and Calinou is a moderator and also contributes to the games development. I just thought I would let you know, In addition the article is also written mainly only by people who are moderators or contribute to the game. I have no idea of whether anything is appropriate or not, I just thought I would inform an administrator who has made a comment on the AfD. John F. Lewis (talk) 21:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, at this point, I cannot get involved as an admin, but all I can do is comment from what I see as a Wikipedia editor. --MuZemike 22:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I saw you added the Rally template linking to the thread on the Minetest forum, In my opinion, That is fair to deal with the situation. John F. Lewis (talk) 22:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I have no doubt that was posted, not only to show off their original creation, but also to serve to get their members to try and votestack; I've seen it done many times over the years. --MuZemike 22:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	For recognition of err and apology given without malice. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 14:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Don't worry about it, I didn't take it personally. Hot Stop (Edits) 20:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

block of User:Buttchunker

Is under discussion at WP:AN#Invoking_the_standard_offer. Specifically, some users are wondering if you CUd them or used behavioral evidence alone when determining the pupeteer, who is now requesting unblock via IRC. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Protection of Charlottesville, Virginia

Hi MuZemike. I know you do a lot of work with sockpuppets, so I wanted to ask: was there any particular reason you protected Charlottesville, Virginia for one year in back in July? It didn't have any prior semi-protection history, and there hadn't been any vandalism for months besides a spurt of vandalism from one IP six days before. Thanks, David1217 ^{What I've done} 22:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I have responded via email about this. --MuZemike 23:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Buttchunker

Hi MuZemike. I believe that I've significantly improved some of the articles created by (now banned) User:Buttchunker, i.e. Örebro Konserthus, Frankenhalle and many many others. WP:CSD#G5 says: "Pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and which have no substantial edits by others". Could you check the deleted edit history and let me know if you consider my edits 'substantial', please? I added mainly {{expand}} tags and links pointing to better articles on foreign Wikis, images and cats. Most of the subjects are — in my opinion — notable and expandable. Was the deletion necessary? Thank you. Best regards. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Btw, I've noticed the ANI discussion. I won't comment on the editor, but I don't think they created articles on non-notable music theatres and venues. Of course, it is a matter of individual assessment and consideration. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

My interpretation of "substantial" refers to the addition of actual content. I do not consider minor wikifiction or adding of interwiki links, categories, or tags to be substantial enough. If anyone is willing to work on said deleted articles who is not currently blocked or banned, then I'm willing to look at each case individually. Moreover, any other non-banned user is free to recreate and expand upon if so desired. --MuZemike 22:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Above user V. appears trustworthy. Why don't you accept that he reviewed the content and approved it? If only minor editing was needed, so be it. Jehochman ^Talk 12:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, you don't have admin access at the moment. I restored the articles as disputed speedy. This is routine. Anybody can proceed with AfD if they want to. Lack of notability isn't a reason for speedy, and CSD G5 is disputed.Jehochman ^Talk 12:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

600josh

Did you actually find any evidence? I didn't think there was anything other than a gut feeling from me?Petebutt (talk) 01:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Essentially the same location and same topics (airlines, disasters, and terrorism). There are a couple other socks, as well. --MuZemike 02:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC)