User talk:MuZemike/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Not a Barn, Not a Star...

		The Sparky Barnstar
		With your insane amount of work here with vandalism revisions, page protection, and blocking mixing with always helping out other users with problems, you make Wikipedia a great place to be. For that, I hereby award you The Sparky Barnstar. :) Congrats! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Ragil PD

I note that you blocked this editor as a sock of User:Elf021. When I tagged several articles in Indonesian by this editor for speedy deletion as content forks last week, after mechanically translating them into English, I also tagged a similar article by User:DewiDI, so it might be worth looking at this editor as well, if that hasn't been done already. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you; I discovered 7 more socks as a result of that discovery. –MuZemike 02:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Geez, talk about prolific -- over 300 270 socks! Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking moronic, myself. HalfShadow 03:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Morlific? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Per-banned user asking to be reinstated

(talk page stalker)Looks like I made an adoption offer to a banned editor. First, do you know who he/she is and second is can I take the stuff he said at face value and AGF?--intelati^talk 17:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Not at this point, I cannot tell. –MuZemike 17:38, 21 November 2010 (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.

--intelati^talk 20:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: No-hitter lists

No need to apologize, MuZemike. I only created those no-hitter "lists" because there are lists for other teams now, as well as a navbox for the pages. Of course I knew that these two lists would probably be deleted; I just thought that if the Mets or Padres actually did throw no-hitters in the future, then it would save someone time because the pages would already be here. It is fine by me if they are deleted. - PM800 (talk) 19:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Nintendo Power Awards

I noticed that you found references for Ninja Gaiden III about the Nintendo Power Awards. Do you have references to other years as well? Maybe one that F-Zero was in? GamerPro64 (talk) 22:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, F-Zero was that same year, and unfortunately, it received only one nomination for "Best Play Control" in the Super NES category and was runner-up behind Super Mario World. –MuZemike 22:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Well that sucks. At least I have the Top 200, though. GamerPro64 (talk) 22:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Intermediate action requested at File:4chan front page 2010.png

The description "|Description=A screenshot of 4chan's 2010 front page with new heading logo and footer and a Wikipedia Fundraiser banner. Images in the "Recent Images" section are blanked to meet Fair Use criteria." of the file needs to be modified. This modification is non-controversial, as it corrects the description to match the currently protected version. You may find a correct description for the current version at this diff's source as: "|Description=A screenshot of 4chan's 2009 front page with new heading logo and footer. Images in the "Recent Images" section are blanked to meet Fair Use criteria. " Such a change would be non-controversial, as this issue is not a part of the content debate which required the protection. Many thanks, Fifelfoo (talk) 13:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Help!!

Hi there MUZE, VASCO here,

Please have a look at Julio Álvarez and see what you can do, an anon "user" (don't know if it's his girlfriend or just one lunatic) has been inserting all kind of lies (POV/weasel, saying this player is a Spanish international when he's NOT, etc, etc).

If you check the article's edit history, on 12 June 2010, we already had to put up with this vandal's encyclopedia of mayhem in 16 "marvellous" volumes, which i rolledback. Now, i am sorry but i could not resist, and sent him a message. I did not use any vile language or anything, but i am afraid i might have "fed the troll" (it's very unlikely, though, that he will read anything, as i think he has a dynamic IP).

Sorry for any inconvenience, thank you very much in advance - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 02:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe the blocks were made after the fact, so I don't think there is much to worry about here at the moment. –MuZemike 02:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry, i don't understand, which blocks were made after which fact? Besides, checking the edit history, i can clearly see that the page has never been protected, and both those IP addresses have never received any warning whatsoever (and this is also the same person http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/92.11.162.96). Please elaborate Mike, i am confused on what you are trying to convey... --Vasco Amaral (talk) 03:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Well Mike? Can you please explain it to me? - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Ah, and the same behaviour (adding lies and POV/weasel) has been done for the SECOND TIME by a Portuguese "user" in Sérgio Leite...No comments - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Request for bot for newsletter delivery

On behalf of the Indian WikiProject, I'd like to request if MuZebot could be made available to perform the delivery of the project's newsletter to its participants. The newsletter is located here and the list of participants on whose talk pages it is to be delivered is here. Any help would be appreciated, since our regular bot is down for a while. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 19:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done by User:Od Mishehu. Thanks, anyway! Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 14:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Half million Asian and British IPs blocked for 1 to 3 months

Hi. I was looking at recent blocks and noticed you'd blocked a giant swath of IPs:

• Special:Contributions/117.198.0.0/16
  • Asia
• Special:Contributions/178.100.0.0/16
  • United Kingdom
• Special:Contributions/178.101.0.0/16
  • United Kingdom
• Special:Contributions/178.102.0.0/16
  • United Kingdom
• Special:Contributions/178.108.0.0/16
  • United Kingdom
• Special:Contributions/178.109.0.0/16
  • United Kingdom
• Special:Contributions/178.110.0.0/16
  • United Kingdom
• Special:Contributions/178.111.0.0/16
  • United Kingdom

I can't imagine any vandalism or disruption from one person in that range sufficient to justify such a gigantic rangeblock but I may be missing something. What's going on?

Thanks, --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Puppies drowned in boiling water, unless one has a better idea as to how to handle this. –MuZemike 23:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Note that there are about 50-60 more abusive account names which are not listed there that have been blocked by myself or by other admins and likely locked by the Stewards. –MuZemike 23:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any edits to our articles by the accounts in that checkuser report. Is this really something so bad as to justify blocking off such a big chunk of British IPs?

If I was calling the shots, I'd let this person just create a bunch of accounts, unblocked, until they got bored. Then I'd block them after they stopped. If they started using the accounts to damage our content, then I'd change that plan but I'm not sure that's their pattern from what I see.

If you haven't already, I strongly recommend you take your decision to the broader community (perhaps at WP:ANI) for discussion. I don't feel comfortable with these rangeblocks.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, first, I will compile a list of every abuse account and every attack page so the community knows what we're dealing with here. Note that this will take a while. –MuZemike 23:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Please don't. It took a long time to oversight all of those. I do think, though, that these blocks are a bit large. Huge rangeblocks do far more damage than an abusive account name that lasts for 15 seconds while a steward fills out the form. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 23:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, then I have nothing to stand on in the community's view, and hence I have no choice and have unblocked all the ranges. Keep in mind that we let the vandal win here. –MuZemike 00:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Look, I'm not the boss here and I don't have all the answers. If you think these rangeblocks are the way to go, then I suggest you raise the issue at WP:ANI. I also suggest undeleting the SPI page temporarily.

I note that we had 1682 edits from 820 IPs in the 7 178.xxx.xxx.xxx ranges during the last 4 months. I tried to get a count of the edits from 179.xxx.xxx.xxx but my text editor crashed; the file was about the same size, so I think you had a comparable number of edits from the 179 range as from the 7 178 ranges combined. If so, that's about 25 to 30 edits/day from those 8 IP ranges.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

PS, however this ends up getting handled, thanks for all your work investigating and documenting this. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Please stop the cover-up

YMs RfC doesn't address whether or not he should remain an administrator, the scope of the RfC was well detailed and that discussion is outside it's scope. Trying to force a discussion closed moments after it's been added to does nothing but encourage drama.--Crossmr (talk) 01:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no need to have drama going on at two places at once. I know you don't like how RfC works, but don't accuse me of any wrongdoing when I have absolutely no involvement in this matter besides moving on the discussion at another venue in which somebody else has already started. –MuZemike 01:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

There. Are you fucking happy, now? –MuZemike 01:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

(EC)The discussion was started at AN/I, not at RfC/U. The RfC/U also has no bearing on whether or not he retains his bit. That's an entirely separate discussion than any outcome at the RfC. If you look at the statements at the top of the RfC, you'll not that that outcome isn't even on the table there. SO forcing the discussion to a place that wasn't setup to handle it is pointless and drama inducing. The discussion surrounding my reasoning for the removal of his bit is a direct result of disruptive behaviour both in bad blocks and page protections. Those things are disruptive and under the purview of AN/I, not RfC/U. This isn't dispute resolution. It's stopping disruption on the encyclopedia.--Crossmr (talk) 01:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

You know what, you folks deal with it, then. I'll be waiting when this continues at ArbCom. –MuZemike 01:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Why are you even listening to him MuZemike? The Community wasn't ready to agree to its own desysop process; if he wants to complain, tell him to go to ArbCom. Don't feed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

And don't make veiled personal attacks. You want to debate the merits of the matter at hand feel free.--Crossmr (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Your understanding of the Community is seriously off key; that you pretend that concern is a personal attack is really quite sad. I think back when it was being discussed, I did support a Community process of desysopping but the Community did not come to a consensus so it was not adopted. You're certainly not going to get a block by keeping it at ANI; everyone already knows that. So this brings it back to desysopping...nobody is willing to do so unless there is a process in place, and the fact there is none in force at the moment means that the only body which will desysop is ArbCom. And even that's arguably premature given that you even admit dispute resolution is ongoing (aka RfCU). So...which steward has told you that he'll desysop on the basis of ANI? Or is this just more drama for the sake of drama? I'm honestly looking for an honest answer. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I would concede if you want to archive the upper part of the discussion, but the proposal is fresh. If you want it to go to the archives the proposal could be moved to its own section for discussion.--Crossmr (talk) 01:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

(now that I am "cooled off" a little, btw, one sentence struck above) There probably is not much a point to close only part of the discussion. I mean, Ncmvocalist has a point, though. Calling for a desysop on ANI is akin to calling for a lynch mob (unless that's the point, then I'll stop while ahead). I say that because nobody has ever been desysopped on the account of an ANI straw poll; even if there is a consensus for it, you or someone would end up probably taking it to ArbCom for investigation, anyways. Hence, I personally don't see much of a point in that, either. Anyways, it's not my board, and I suppose one is entitled to waste one's time there, like we all do at one point or another. –MuZemike 01:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

blocking dynamics

I wanted to respond here with a bit more detail. Whenever I block a dynamic IP, I monitor the articles the dynamic has been vandalizing. If I see that the vandalism hops to a related IP, I unblock the original because it obviously is no longer associated with the vandal. With child vandals (like this one), they usually don't know how to change their IP.—Kww(talk) 19:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I tend to not worry much about unblocking previous IPs myself personally, especially when half the time I'm normally looking for a rangeblock on repeat IP block evasions. Otherwise, depending on the size of the IP range of a specific pool on a given ISP, the probability is rather high that a blocked address gets assigned to an uninvolved person, let alone should they edit Wikipedia. That seems a little verbose, but that's how I see blocking with regards to dynamic IPs work. You're most certainly not wrong, however, in unblocking previous IPs; I don't do it, as I normally find ranges to block. That's why, with vandals like Grawp or something /b/-related or similar, I'd argue you don't need to block an IP any longer than an hour or two. –MuZemike 20:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving

Neutralhomer wishes you a Happy Thanksgiving and hopes your day is full of good times, good food, good family, good football, a good parade and a good nap...then shopping tomorrow. :) Have a Great Day! :) Spread the joy of Thanksgiving by adding {{subst:User:Neutralhomer/HappyThanksgiving}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Please

Hi there MIKE, VASCO here,

it seems your wiki-schedule has been pretty hectic...Could you please have a look at this, regarding my last message (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MuZemike#Help.21.21)? In a nutshell, what did you mean in your reply about Julio Álvarez (i did not make anything of it), and what can be done to stop the vandalism (yes it is VANDALISM, the inserting of false info) in Sérgio Leite?

Thanks in advance, regards - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 21:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

You are referring to this edit, right? That edit was some 13 days ago. We do not try and punitively block users, that's akin to smacking a cat who peed on a rug 3 hours after the cat did the deed. Moreover this last IP edit seems to be constructive, so for this article, let's wait and see what happens. I already have placed a rangeblock on this edit warrior, not to mention semi-protect others. –MuZemike 03:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• This last IP only edited ONCE in J. Álvarez, and it was not constructive, it was pure and sheer vandalism, although i see your point. And what about Sérgio Leite? Do you think some page protection is possible (as in Álvarez, pure and sheer vandalism by anon IP, both from Portugal, so i guess it's the same "user" - i mean the same user in S. Leite)? Again, i leave it in your capable hands, cheers - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 04:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Why was the sly old cat deleted?

I just google searched it and used cached and the article was full and done properly. Daniel Christensen (talk) 02:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Did you miss the fact that the article was fine. The other one, the tale of the faithful dove or whatever is not coming up in a google search, so could you restore it. I'm certain it was just as good. Daniel Christensen (talk) 03:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

It was created by a sock puppet banned user ItsLassieTime (talk · contribs), who evaded her ban to create that article, and it had no other significant contributions by others. Please see the following relevant pages:

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ItsLassieTime/Archive
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LaVidaLoca/Archive
• User talk:MuZemike/Archive 3#ItsLassieTime article creations
• User talk:MuZemike/Archive 3#ItsLassieTime article creations part 2
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 November 15#The Storks
• User talk:MuZemike/Archive 6#Uploads by Susanne2009NYC

As I said about a week ago, I am not going to restore them, you may contest the deletion at WP:DRV if you like, but I have done this before and there was a consensus to endorse them (though I realize that may change). Even if they are restored, they would still be subject to scrutiny, as she has had a long history of plagiarism; see Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/ItsLassieTime. –MuZemike 03:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, since you took it on your own to restore it yourself, I will be sending everything to DRV, then myself. –MuZemike 03:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it's mostly the files. The articles seem fine. Besides copyright stuff is much more strict with files. No, I can't restore; I was resourceful and I copied and pasted from the cache of the article through a google search. Even though it was deleted it still showed up in a google search. Daniel Christensen (talk) 04:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I see absolutely nothing in that article that can be seen as a copyvio. I'm sure all of the images were, but the article was well sourced and written just as well as any other article. Daniel Christensen (talk) 04:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm kind of surprised, actually; that was over a week. Anyways, I've sent them all to DRV for the community to review again; we tend to disagree in that I do not care if a banned user wrote a well-written and well-sourced article, that we're only encouraging them to continue to evade said ban if we let them stand. –MuZemike 04:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a point of note, recreating an article from a cache without attributing its contributor is in itself a copyvio. I've restored the history for once but would advise Daniel Christensen avoid such recreations in the future. MLauba ^(Talk) 13:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Yongle the Great

Thanks for your prompt response, and blocking the IP range. I was wondering about the other account. One of the odd things about this editor is the way he reverts himself. Dougweller (talk) 18:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The other user is on a completely different continent from what I checked. I also wasn't able to detect any proxies or anything. –MuZemike 19:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Unban request by (part of?) User:The abominable Wiki troll

Hi. As an admin who has previously interacted with this banned user, you may be interested to participate in the discussion at WP:AN#Unban request by (part of?) The abominable Wiki troll. Regards,  Sandstein  11:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

This was uncalled for, I believe, as well as impolite (administrators should never gratuitously call anyone a "moron", even very disruptive banned users). If I see what looks like a sincere attempt to become a productive editor, I feel obliged to at least hear them out. It's exactly because I don't know the background of this user that I submitted the matter to other colleagues for comment. I am much surprised to be rebuked in this rough manner, by an experienced colleague such as you especially, for "even thinking about" professionally processing an unblock request. Please consider, next time, that not all fellow administrators may be as well acquainted with all aspects of a banned user's history as you (as a checkuser) may be. Regards,  Sandstein  22:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

This user has been at it for the past two years, including stuff like this (now deleted). You opened the door for him, not to mention gave him ammunition and motivation, to troll everyone and launch attacks. You could have asked one of admins who have blocked these socks in the past first; I am one of them, Avi is another. Another user (a non-admin) made the same mistake about a month ago in posting a huge thread on ANI regarding a serial abuser, which ended up getting negative coverage off-wiki (Slashdot in particular). We do not need to publicly give these users any slack. –MuZemike 22:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I did look the user up at WP:LTA, no entry there. If that user is indeed such a menace that even talking him about is problematic, you as somebody with the required experience should have documented it there. I do not see how I opened any doors, or gave him any ammunition or motivation, by simply hearing his statement and relaying it to the community for an opinion, as is standard for community ban appeals. Again, please do not assume that everybody is as knowledgeable about every banned user as you are; and I feel that you owe it to those of your colleagues who are not to inform them politely and professionally instead of swinging virtual fish about. We are on the same side here, you know.  Sandstein  22:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Transformers AfDs

In case you never noticed my reply at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Transformers#New AfDs, the transformers WikiProject does have a deletion sorting : Wikipedia:WikiProject Transformers/Deletion sorting. It's had one since September. The deletion sorting is even linked to in one of the boxes at the top of the project talk page. NotARealWord (talk) 16:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Checkuser

• Phne65 (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)
• Nvrp1128 (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)

A quick Grundle check on these please. The reason why should be obvious. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 20:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Both blocked along with the range being used. I am still questioning why he's still banned when we cannot conceivably stop him from editing here. –MuZemike 20:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

All he ever did was add true, accurate, reliably sourced content to wikipedia. The only reason he was ever banned in the first place is because there are many editors here who think wikipedia should be censored so as not to contain content which is critical of certain politicians. Brst98 (talk) 21:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

blocking dynamics

I wanted to respond here with a bit more detail. Whenever I block a dynamic IP, I monitor the articles the dynamic has been vandalizing. If I see that the vandalism hops to a related IP, I unblock the original because it obviously is no longer associated with the vandal. With child vandals (like this one), they usually don't know how to change their IP.—Kww(talk) 19:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I tend to not worry much about unblocking previous IPs myself personally, especially when half the time I'm normally looking for a rangeblock on repeat IP block evasions. Otherwise, depending on the size of the IP range of a specific pool on a given ISP, the probability is rather high that a blocked address gets assigned to an uninvolved person, let alone should they edit Wikipedia. That seems a little verbose, but that's how I see blocking with regards to dynamic IPs work. You're most certainly not wrong, however, in unblocking previous IPs; I don't do it, as I normally find ranges to block. That's why, with vandals like Grawp or something /b/-related or similar, I'd argue you don't need to block an IP any longer than an hour or two. –MuZemike 20:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Please

Hi there MIKE, VASCO here,

it seems your wiki-schedule has been pretty hectic...Could you please have a look at this, regarding my last message (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MuZemike#Help.21.21)? In a nutshell, what did you mean in your reply about Julio Álvarez (i did not make anything of it), and what can be done to stop the vandalism (yes it is VANDALISM, the inserting of false info) in Sérgio Leite?

Thanks in advance, regards - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 21:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

You are referring to this edit, right? That edit was some 13 days ago. We do not try and punitively block users, that's akin to smacking a cat who peed on a rug 3 hours after the cat did the deed. Moreover this last IP edit seems to be constructive, so for this article, let's wait and see what happens. I already have placed a rangeblock on this edit warrior, not to mention semi-protect others. –MuZemike 03:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• This last IP only edited ONCE in J. Álvarez, and it was not constructive, it was pure and sheer vandalism, although i see your point. And what about Sérgio Leite? Do you think some page protection is possible (as in Álvarez, pure and sheer vandalism by anon IP, both from Portugal, so i guess it's the same "user" - i mean the same user in S. Leite)? Again, i leave it in your capable hands, cheers - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 04:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Why was the sly old cat deleted?

I just google searched it and used cached and the article was full and done properly. Daniel Christensen (talk) 02:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Did you miss the fact that the article was fine. The other one, the tale of the faithful dove or whatever is not coming up in a google search, so could you restore it. I'm certain it was just as good. Daniel Christensen (talk) 03:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

It was created by a sock puppet banned user ItsLassieTime (talk · contribs), who evaded her ban to create that article, and it had no other significant contributions by others. Please see the following relevant pages:

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ItsLassieTime/Archive
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LaVidaLoca/Archive
• User talk:MuZemike/Archive 3#ItsLassieTime article creations
• User talk:MuZemike/Archive 3#ItsLassieTime article creations part 2
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 November 15#The Storks
• User talk:MuZemike/Archive 6#Uploads by Susanne2009NYC

As I said about a week ago, I am not going to restore them, you may contest the deletion at WP:DRV if you like, but I have done this before and there was a consensus to endorse them (though I realize that may change). Even if they are restored, they would still be subject to scrutiny, as she has had a long history of plagiarism; see Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/ItsLassieTime. –MuZemike 03:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, since you took it on your own to restore it yourself, I will be sending everything to DRV, then myself. –MuZemike 03:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it's mostly the files. The articles seem fine. Besides copyright stuff is much more strict with files. No, I can't restore; I was resourceful and I copied and pasted from the cache of the article through a google search. Even though it was deleted it still showed up in a google search. Daniel Christensen (talk) 04:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I see absolutely nothing in that article that can be seen as a copyvio. I'm sure all of the images were, but the article was well sourced and written just as well as any other article. Daniel Christensen (talk) 04:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm kind of surprised, actually; that was over a week. Anyways, I've sent them all to DRV for the community to review again; we tend to disagree in that I do not care if a banned user wrote a well-written and well-sourced article, that we're only encouraging them to continue to evade said ban if we let them stand. –MuZemike 04:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a point of note, recreating an article from a cache without attributing its contributor is in itself a copyvio. I've restored the history for once but would advise Daniel Christensen avoid such recreations in the future. MLauba ^(Talk) 13:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Yongle the Great

Thanks for your prompt response, and blocking the IP range. I was wondering about the other account. One of the odd things about this editor is the way he reverts himself. Dougweller (talk) 18:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The other user is on a completely different continent from what I checked. I also wasn't able to detect any proxies or anything. –MuZemike 19:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

blocking dynamics

I wanted to respond here with a bit more detail. Whenever I block a dynamic IP, I monitor the articles the dynamic has been vandalizing. If I see that the vandalism hops to a related IP, I unblock the original because it obviously is no longer associated with the vandal. With child vandals (like this one), they usually don't know how to change their IP.—Kww(talk) 19:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I tend to not worry much about unblocking previous IPs myself personally, especially when half the time I'm normally looking for a rangeblock on repeat IP block evasions. Otherwise, depending on the size of the IP range of a specific pool on a given ISP, the probability is rather high that a blocked address gets assigned to an uninvolved person, let alone should they edit Wikipedia. That seems a little verbose, but that's how I see blocking with regards to dynamic IPs work. You're most certainly not wrong, however, in unblocking previous IPs; I don't do it, as I normally find ranges to block. That's why, with vandals like Grawp or something /b/-related or similar, I'd argue you don't need to block an IP any longer than an hour or two. –MuZemike 20:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Please

Hi there MIKE, VASCO here,

it seems your wiki-schedule has been pretty hectic...Could you please have a look at this, regarding my last message (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MuZemike#Help.21.21)? In a nutshell, what did you mean in your reply about Julio Álvarez (i did not make anything of it), and what can be done to stop the vandalism (yes it is VANDALISM, the inserting of false info) in Sérgio Leite?

Thanks in advance, regards - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 21:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

You are referring to this edit, right? That edit was some 13 days ago. We do not try and punitively block users, that's akin to smacking a cat who peed on a rug 3 hours after the cat did the deed. Moreover this last IP edit seems to be constructive, so for this article, let's wait and see what happens. I already have placed a rangeblock on this edit warrior, not to mention semi-protect others. –MuZemike 03:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• This last IP only edited ONCE in J. Álvarez, and it was not constructive, it was pure and sheer vandalism, although i see your point. And what about Sérgio Leite? Do you think some page protection is possible (as in Álvarez, pure and sheer vandalism by anon IP, both from Portugal, so i guess it's the same "user" - i mean the same user in S. Leite)? Again, i leave it in your capable hands, cheers - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 04:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Why was the sly old cat deleted?

I just google searched it and used cached and the article was full and done properly. Daniel Christensen (talk) 02:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Did you miss the fact that the article was fine. The other one, the tale of the faithful dove or whatever is not coming up in a google search, so could you restore it. I'm certain it was just as good. Daniel Christensen (talk) 03:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

It was created by a sock puppet banned user ItsLassieTime (talk · contribs), who evaded her ban to create that article, and it had no other significant contributions by others. Please see the following relevant pages:

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ItsLassieTime/Archive
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LaVidaLoca/Archive
• User talk:MuZemike/Archive 3#ItsLassieTime article creations
• User talk:MuZemike/Archive 3#ItsLassieTime article creations part 2
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 November 15#The Storks
• User talk:MuZemike/Archive 6#Uploads by Susanne2009NYC

As I said about a week ago, I am not going to restore them, you may contest the deletion at WP:DRV if you like, but I have done this before and there was a consensus to endorse them (though I realize that may change). Even if they are restored, they would still be subject to scrutiny, as she has had a long history of plagiarism; see Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/ItsLassieTime. –MuZemike 03:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, since you took it on your own to restore it yourself, I will be sending everything to DRV, then myself. –MuZemike 03:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it's mostly the files. The articles seem fine. Besides copyright stuff is much more strict with files. No, I can't restore; I was resourceful and I copied and pasted from the cache of the article through a google search. Even though it was deleted it still showed up in a google search. Daniel Christensen (talk) 04:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I see absolutely nothing in that article that can be seen as a copyvio. I'm sure all of the images were, but the article was well sourced and written just as well as any other article. Daniel Christensen (talk) 04:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm kind of surprised, actually; that was over a week. Anyways, I've sent them all to DRV for the community to review again; we tend to disagree in that I do not care if a banned user wrote a well-written and well-sourced article, that we're only encouraging them to continue to evade said ban if we let them stand. –MuZemike 04:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a point of note, recreating an article from a cache without attributing its contributor is in itself a copyvio. I've restored the history for once but would advise Daniel Christensen avoid such recreations in the future. MLauba ^(Talk) 13:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Yongle the Great

Thanks for your prompt response, and blocking the IP range. I was wondering about the other account. One of the odd things about this editor is the way he reverts himself. Dougweller (talk) 18:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The other user is on a completely different continent from what I checked. I also wasn't able to detect any proxies or anything. –MuZemike 19:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Unban request by (part of?) User:The abominable Wiki troll

Hi. As an admin who has previously interacted with this banned user, you may be interested to participate in the discussion at WP:AN#Unban request by (part of?) The abominable Wiki troll. Regards,  Sandstein  11:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

This was uncalled for, I believe, as well as impolite (administrators should never gratuitously call anyone a "moron", even very disruptive banned users). If I see what looks like a sincere attempt to become a productive editor, I feel obliged to at least hear them out. It's exactly because I don't know the background of this user that I submitted the matter to other colleagues for comment. I am much surprised to be rebuked in this rough manner, by an experienced colleague such as you especially, for "even thinking about" professionally processing an unblock request. Please consider, next time, that not all fellow administrators may be as well acquainted with all aspects of a banned user's history as you (as a checkuser) may be. Regards,  Sandstein  22:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

This user has been at it for the past two years, including stuff like this (now deleted). You opened the door for him, not to mention gave him ammunition and motivation, to troll everyone and launch attacks. You could have asked one of admins who have blocked these socks in the past first; I am one of them, Avi is another. Another user (a non-admin) made the same mistake about a month ago in posting a huge thread on ANI regarding a serial abuser, which ended up getting negative coverage off-wiki (Slashdot in particular). We do not need to publicly give these users any slack. –MuZemike 22:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I did look the user up at WP:LTA, no entry there. If that user is indeed such a menace that even talking him about is problematic, you as somebody with the required experience should have documented it there. I do not see how I opened any doors, or gave him any ammunition or motivation, by simply hearing his statement and relaying it to the community for an opinion, as is standard for community ban appeals. Again, please do not assume that everybody is as knowledgeable about every banned user as you are; and I feel that you owe it to those of your colleagues who are not to inform them politely and professionally instead of swinging virtual fish about. We are on the same side here, you know.  Sandstein  22:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Transformers AfDs

In case you never noticed my reply at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Transformers#New AfDs, the transformers WikiProject does have a deletion sorting : Wikipedia:WikiProject Transformers/Deletion sorting. It's had one since September. The deletion sorting is even linked to in one of the boxes at the top of the project talk page. NotARealWord (talk) 16:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Checkuser

• Phne65 (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)
• Nvrp1128 (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)

A quick Grundle check on these please. The reason why should be obvious. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 20:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Both blocked along with the range being used. I am still questioning why he's still banned when we cannot conceivably stop him from editing here. –MuZemike 20:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

All he ever did was add true, accurate, reliably sourced content to wikipedia. The only reason he was ever banned in the first place is because there are many editors here who think wikipedia should be censored so as not to contain content which is critical of certain politicians. Brst98 (talk) 21:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

See you whenever.

Don't do anything I wouldn't do. And if you do, take pictures.

'Bye. HalfShadow 02:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Not Another!

First Rlevse, now you....my list of admin friends is running short. Well, what is important is I hope you enjoy some WP:REALLIFE and are able to do offline things now with your WikiBreak. I wish you the best of luck on whatever you plan on doing offline and hope to see you back soon. :) Take Care Dude. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

No, Neutralhomer, I'm not completely leaving. It's more a combination of on-wiki and RL stuff in which is causing to back off for a little bit. Besides, some users would go crazy if I truly left :) –MuZemike 14:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

You know what, to hell with this break, since the vandals can't live with me. –MuZemike 18:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Glad you are back, hope you though get some RL time to yourself. If you need any Non-Admin help, please let me know. Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Kill 'em with fire.

Fire, I say. 18:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Fire....Fire!....FIRE!! Sorry, unleashed my inner-Beavis there for a second. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Abuse from my school IPs

Hi MuZemike could you range block my school IPs? One of my friends has a twisted interpretation of what is fun, he believes that vandalising articles and adding in defamatory material about my fellow classmates and some prominent figures is absolutely hilarious. Special:Contributions/153.107.33.151 is one of my school IPs, I don't know much about range blocks, while this IP is currently blocked, others are either unblocked, or blocked with less restrictions such as talk page access. Regards, —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 1:51pm • 02:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It's hard for me to tell how many of those IPs are assigned to schools and which aren't, according to the rather vague information given by WHOIS. I don't want to be blocking ranges in which I don't know where they go to, and I definitely do not want to from uninvolved IPs. –MuZemike 04:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Always look at the "Geolocate" link on the Contrib page too, gives some more information. The IP is registered to NSW Department of Education and Training in Blacktown, New South Wales. According to the Wikipedia article, it could be anyone of a number of schools including:

Blacktown North Public School, Blacktown South Public School, Blacktown West Public School, Lynwood Park Public School, Marayong South Public School, Shelley Public School, and Walters Road Public School. Public high schools include: Blacktown Boys High, Blacktown Girls High, Evans High and Mitchell High. There is also the Coreen School, which caters to older children with learning difficulties.

So, I will leave it up to you which one caused the problem. Perhaps User:Ancapp can narrow it down without outting himself (like saying Elementary, Middle or High). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The Departmental IPs are sometimes allocated to several schools, more reason to toughen the block settings on said IPs, particularly the one I linked. I'll dig around for other IPs and will report back soon. Cheers, —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 4:05pm • 05:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, I don't want an answer to this question, cause the answer outs you and I don't want to know and actually can't know. But if you are a student at this school system, check with your school's IP department. Get the IP information and call the school system's main number. Give them your school and the exact time the vandalism happened. The IP department that handles internet communications for the schools can track that edit down to a specific school and even a specific computer and in turn a specific student. Had the same thing happen in my former school here in the US and the school system's IP department did the leg work and the kid got In-School Suspension for it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

These are recurring vandals I'm talking about, the Department of Education is the most useless ministry in New South Wales in terms of how they handle abuse of computer privileges. I had told my school's systems administrator about the vandalism but he said it's "too much work" for the Department since they already monitor people that attempt to hack school computers, bypass filters etc. In fact, they don't even care about the defamatory material students are posting on Wikipedia.

I found this one: Special:Contributions/153.107.33.155, to the best of my knowledge the IPs from 151-155 are used by my school. Thanks any Neutralhomer :) Regards, —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 5:05pm • 06:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Then MuZemike, if what AA says is true (which I would believe it, same in the US in places) the only choice is to lock those 5 IP fields down for the length of the school block, which I believe is 2 years. They just won't be able to edit Wikipedia at all and maybe when they can't do that, they will be a little more active in looking for the vandals. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

.hack FAC

As someone who commented on the previous FAC, perhaps you'd be interested in taking a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/.hack (video game series)/archive2? Thank you in advance, Axem Titanium (talk) 03:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Believe You Missed One

Seen your updating of your Barnstars and I do believe you missed one: this one. No worries though, it really isn't considered a "star", more of an award. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I normally keep the actual barnstar awards in the talk page archives, whereas I keep a summary of them on my main user page. The other two were directly placed there by other users, and there are no ribbons for them. –MuZemike 04:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha....I would make a ribbon, if I knew how and could make it fancy lookin'. :) OK, no worries. As long as you knew it was there (didn't want it be missed). :) Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

User:The Globular Mass

Thank you for checking up on this user, too bad they were using sockpuppets to cause trouble. I noted three IPs on this thread which were also involved in what he was doing; I don't know if they were with him, or not though. 108.69.80.49 (talk) 04:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I did not see that thread at all. There was another suspicious account in which I checked which led to the confirmation of these socks. –MuZemike 04:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I suspected as much - keep up the good work. 108.69.80.49 (talk) 05:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

ANI

I wonder if you would mind commenting on the puzzlement several of us have in this section of ANI: [1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like Tiptoety got the easy part, unless you need me for something else. –MuZemike 19:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I think it's resolved now. Thanks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Recent SPI

Regarding [2] I feel it necessary to register my strong suspicions that this was the work of User:Benjiboi, a user who left under his own steam of substantial (and probably true) allegations of COI and paid editing. Almost all the pages edited by the socks were also edited by Benjiboi, the editing style is very similar and the socks seem to have been stalking the same users that Benjiboi did in his day. - Schrandit (talk) 09:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

It is possible, and I had similar suspicions. However, we cannot check Benjiboi is he is waaaay stale, and I don't think any other CU bothered to check back earlier this year as there was no reason to suspect anything. –MuZemike 18:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Just FYI: [3] (CU-only link). Tiptoety ^talk 19:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I just opened up an SPI with Benjiboi as the potential sockmaster. –MuZemike 19:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Unless you are already going to, I can take a look later today. Tiptoety ^talk 19:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

If you want. I didn't notice there were previous checks on that until after I started this SPI page. –MuZemike 19:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Copy edit

Thanks for responding last night. Would you have the time an inclination take a look at Sigi Shcmid? It is over at FAN and an editor said that it would help if someone not familiar with it took a look. Rally appreciated if you do get the chance. Cptnono (talk) 04:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

First, I won't be able to get to it right away, as I will be busy IRL this weekend. Second, you may wish to correct the spelling, as I have a redlink here and don't know what to search for. –MuZemike 06:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Lol. (fixed it)

If you can get to it great. If not it is no big deal. Cptnono (talk) 06:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

GAN review of Ninja Gaiden III

I've reviewed the article here. I'll be watching both the article and the GAN review, so as items are fixed I'll around to update the status. --Teancum (talk) 10:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Car Town

Gatoclass (talk) 18:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Asperchu

Hi there,

I noticed some disturbing behavior from this user earlier today, so I came back to check on his edits and see what he has been up to, and sure enough he has been blocked as a suspected sockpuppet of someone who's used them before. Would it be possible for you to confirm if this really is a sock of that user, or is that even necessary? BOZ (talk) 02:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, he outted himself. Sounds pretty determined to keep socking though. BOZ (talk) 18:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Reminder - Ninja Gaiden III GAN review

Just a reminder that I've reviewed Ninja Gaiden III and it's on hold (though I don't think that I set it as on hold). Just wanted to drop in again because I noticed a bot archived your talk page. --Teancum (talk) 01:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Yep, hopefully I'll get to it within the next day or two. –MuZemike 01:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Al-Akhbar (Lebanon)

Hi MuZemike, I noticed you've protected the page Al-Akhbar (Lebanon) twice before due to excessive vandalism. The vandalism just resumed after the protection expired. I've already submitted a request to WP:RPP. Just thought I'd let you know since you've dealt with this before. Thanks. --Fjmustak (talk) 02:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Protected for 3 months this time. –MuZemike 02:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

PDR Rohil

I think this Koov sockpuppet has had enough fun; could you please block him? Thanks. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Blocked, along with a few IPs. –MuZemike 08:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I want to ask you a favor, a Wiki friend!

Please take some moments of your precious time to consider and re-rate these articles:

Dream Chronicles series

Dream Chronicles

Dream Chronicles 2: The Eternal Maze

Dream Chronicles: The Chosen Child

Dream Chronicles: The Book of Air

As the main contributing writer of these articles, I will very very appreciate your knowledge and rating.

Big thanks for your help!

– †hinhin_of_you / buzzworthy / βoy Ünder Ғlowers – 12:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Your block of Uncensored Kiwi

Hi, could you please respond to User talk:Uncensored Kiwi#Admin block review? Thanks,  Sandstein  10:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, I've found out why you blocked him and declined the unblock request. Please consider making the reasons for your block more clear next time; I was close to overturning your block because it was initially unclear what exactly the problem was. Thanks,  Sandstein  13:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, me again. Disregard the above, please: it's still not clear what conduct exactly you blocked the user for. I would greatly appreciate it if you could explain your block on the user's talk page.  Sandstein  13:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, but it is still not clear to me which of the edits made by this user or his IP after December 6 warrant a two-week block, and why. Could you please elaborate?  Sandstein  16:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Mainly [4], but I can't find much else. If you don't think that's enough, then I suppose go ahead and unblock. –MuZemike 16:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and unblocked. It was a terrible block, and I should have known better. –MuZemike 17:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing this block.  Sandstein  17:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Possible socking

Take a look at the history of Female sperm storage, now on the DYK section of the front page. There appear to be a group of new editors who have all begun editing at once, and have concentrated the edits on that article. They all received credit for the DYK. Now, I can think of a number of harmless reasons why this might have happened, and it is rather obvious that they are either socks or meats, so I don't think it rises to an SPI. Still, I thought maybe it was or will turn out to be part of a larger pattern and worth mentioning to somebody. Abductive (reasoning) 11:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I have vague recollections that one or more of the science-oriented editors have encouraged several academic colleagues (or students, or people they know, or somesuch) to contribute to Wikipedia, in some cases via the AfC process. This article was created through AfC [5]. I would guess either Smartse or Fetchcomms could explain what's going on. Or, if you need to be more covert (lol?) these things seem sometimes to be discussed at en:T:TDYK. Sorry I can't be more specific, haven't been paying attention really. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a classroom collaboration was one of my "harmless" possibilities. Abductive (reasoning) 18:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi there MIKE, VASCO from Portugal here,

for reasons that escape me, vandalism has been afoot at Simão Sabrosa and Manuel Fernandes (footballer born 1986), with English "user" inserting players play with one team when they DON'T (last time i checked it was vandalism). The past few days, some more "users" have been inserting stuff (at least in the latter article), which included obscenities.

Can you please offer the poor Fernandes and Sabrosa some wiki-solace? Thanks in advance, have a nice week, keep it up - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Another "user" (could very well be the same, anon IP is also from England) has started the same rubbish, now in Hugo Almeida. Please don't doubt my judgements, it IS vandalism, inserting lies in articles is vandalism, even if the language is proper.

Another admin already semi-protected the other two articles, I got the Hugo Almeida article. –MuZemike 19:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MuZemike. You have new messages at Humor Guy's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

He admits his socking and wants to talk with you about it. Gigs (talk) 20:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protection

You semi-protected Ferdowsi millenary celebration in Berlin because of excessive vandalism. The same person is edit-warring in Rezā Shāh using different IPs. That page should be semi-protected too. Alefbe (talk) 01:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to try two rangeblocks on the two IP ranges involved, as they seem isolated enough to place them. –MuZemike 01:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

talkback

Hello, MuZemike. You have new messages at Humor Guy's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Says he agrees.--SPhilbrickT 21:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Wants another look. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the info. Not being very technosavvy I new something was up but had no idea what. I appreciate the time you took in filling me in. Cheers again. MarnetteD | Talk 01:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppets of Edstat

Hi MuZemike! Please view Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Edstat. Thanks! Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 12:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Too late! The case is closed. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 00:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I know, I saw it :) –MuZemike 00:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Follow up to yesterdays ANI on Grundle2600

I just have go an Email from Grundle2600 this morning though the "Email me" feature is there any reason we have not blocked his capabilities for that? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Probably because nobody has raised any concerns that his emails have been getting abusive to the point of revoking email access. –MuZemike 18:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't call the email abusive by a long shot. I was just surprised and curious as i thought being Banned it would have been a procedural revocation The Resident Anthropologist (talk)

Actually, we don't revoke email access unless it is known that the user is using it for abuse, or in some cases as I do, if there is good reason to believe (i.e. from serial vandals) that email will be abused from that account. –MuZemike 18:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanx Learn something new every day here The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Kag

I believe VanityFaresssss (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal) maybe a sock-puppet of Kagome_85 (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal) I just think someone should check it out just to make sure.

Thanks 142.163.146.217 (talk) 22:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

 Confirmed and blocked. Thank you for letting me know. –MuZemike 23:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Mu, can you also block the IP that left you this warning? They're Kagome 85's ex, and have already been indef blocked under a different name for their harassment of their ex.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 23:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Wait a minute, why would a user report his or her own socks? –MuZemike 23:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Wanted to fess up? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter; they both live close to each other, and both need to be blocked on sight, as they were both indef blocked.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 04:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

User:VanityFaresssss has been, the IP, not yet. I do believe MuZemike is offline. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

You're right. I hesitated as I checked earlier but found nothing. However, I checked again just now with other IPs and saw the clear connection. That IP has been blocked. –MuZemike 06:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Since this is open maybe someone could check out Movieediting2222 (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal) just to see if it is Kagome_85 (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal) because User:Movieediting2222 basically undid the edits that User:Daedalus969 made to the same articles 96.30.188.132 (talk) 18:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Help!

I just noticed on my Watchlist that you blocked User:Gentlemen Prefer Blondes. I knew there was something suspicious about how he started doing CCI work the same day he registered. I was foolish not to challenge it further but he had the lingo down pat and was he ever audacious -- see my talkpage for example. He had several articles I created deleted and interfered with my CCI. Can you undo whatever he did (re Cyril Axelrod, John Creaney and Joan Refshauge)? Thanks so much. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 03:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC) P.S. -- what does this guy have against me?

Let's double-check with the deleting admin of those two articles (which would be User:SchuminWeb) before we go restoring; the last thing I want to do is restore copyright violations, even inadvertently. –MuZemike 03:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I have invited the two deleting admins to make their comments with regards to the deletions here. –MuZemike 03:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

User:SchuminWeb is out of Virginia somewhere, I do believe, as he edits alot of the same articles I do (and I am in Virginia). Normally operates during the night (I see him alot at night), so he might be on soon or might be around at the moment. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

OK I understand protocol. I am almost over the shock. But shouldn't the Peter Karlsen userpage ([6]) be tagged as an indefinite ban? Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 03:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd tag it, but I'm uncertain exactly what he's been blocked for so I'll leave it for someone else to decide. HalfShadow 03:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I have already spoken to an arbitrator, whom has told me that Peter Karlsen has not been allowed to create any further accounts, at which point I must conclude that block evasion is going on. –MuZemike 06:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Speaking for the Cyril Axelrod article, it was deleted as a copyright infringement of [7]. Basically, if I can switch between the article and the purported source mid-sentence while reading and not miss a beat, then that's proof of concept, and I could do that there.

Also, Neutralhomer, I live in Maryland now, though I did live in Virginia for many years. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Gennady Yanayev

I've responded to all your comments, are there anymore problems with the article? --TIAYN (talk) 14:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed it know, I think, at least. --TIAYN (talk) 19:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

GAN feedback

Hello. Thank you for volunteering to oversee the GAN of Cornell University. I want to provide some feedback on your review, since I felt it could have been handled better. Below are some reviewer guidelines from WP:RGA as they relate to this GAN.

"The GA process is intended to help editors with article improvement."

• You posted evidence regarding plagiarism without even allowing editors to respond. These appear to be minor issues of plagiarism that could have been easily resolved.
• You failed to strikethrough resolved issues in a timely manner, and even at GAN close, some resolved issues remain open. Striking-through in a timely manner helps GANs progress more efficiently for all stakeholders, and GAN-close-resolution is essential for post-GAN efforts.
• The GAN was closed quite hastily and without notice. Reviewers typically conduct a sweeping review of the article and then give editors about seven days to resolve the issues. If more time is needed but the reviewer feels adequate progress is being made, an extension may be given. You provided no timeline during this review.

"The more specific information that the reviewer can provide to help editors meet all six Good article criteria, the more they will help the overall process of article improvement."

• You never listed any specific issues with the lead, and comments like "I would like to see a little more done in the "Organization and administration" if you can" are too vague.
• You did ultimately provide specific grievances regarding verifiability, but not until two days before you closed the GAN... again, not allowing editors to respond.

In summary, give solutions, not problems; and please provide clear expectations with regards to timeline. If you would like further assistance with the review process, reach out to me or someone at WP:GAN/M. Regards —Eustress ^talk 18:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I gave plenty of ways to move forward with the article. Many of the issues should have been addressed before re-nominating for GA, which a previous one was already failed three months ago. Nobody bothered to verify anything in the article. Moreover, I had a difficult time following any responses because many of them were simply snuk in after my writing without any additional signatures or giving me any clue.

The verifiability issues are too great for me to simply place this on hold. What you need to do is go through the article again and check all of the content against the sources given; I gave you a start with about 1/3 through the article.

WP:GAN is primarily a check on the article to ensure it is of a quality Wikipedia; it is not a glorified peer review – that is what WP:PR is for.

Finally, I have to question the motive as to why this was renominated for GAN two days after another reviewer failed the first nomination. This sounds like somebody is trying to repeatedly renominate the article for GA in the hopes that some "yes man" or some reviewer who doesn't know better will come along and simply rubber-stamp the article for GA. –MuZemike 19:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I have never nominated this article for GA status, and I was pretty hands-off during this GAN. However, I observed your review and thought you might benefit from some feedback. Take it or leave it. —Eustress ^talk 20:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, why was this fact tag removed? That is a substantial claim to say that Cornell University was considered "revolutionary" because of Ezra Cornell's intentions, and it needs to be referenced; I found nothing [8] (following citation) that supports that statement. –MuZemike 19:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

It was removed because that is a topic sentence that summarizes the information in the sentences that follow. "Revolutionary" may be WP:BOOSTER at best, but no citations warranted here. —Eustress ^talk 20:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

As the nominator, I want to thank you for taking the time to do an in-depth review of the article. I was guilty of sinking in unsigned responses to some of your comments in order to communicate progress. The article was renominated in September after three intensive days of full time effort to address all of the concerns from the prior GA review (which was summarily rejected without any interaction.) I thought that a recent featured article should certainly meet GA criteria and we designated the article as the August 2010 Wikiproject Universities collaboration of the month. The result was an improved article including many new footnotes, mostly to source the fact that the notable alumni actually attended Cornell. To give the collaboration a valid end point I nominated the article for GA, and renominated it after addressing the listed concerns, not aware of the defects that you uncovered. Because the GA queue is months long, there was a peer review between the second GA nomination and your review, although that review ended up mostly focusing on images. There was no intent to shop for "some 'yes man.'" Again, thank you for your time. Racepacket (talk) 21:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. I understand the backlog is an issue and everything, and I wasn't aware of a WikiProject collaboration. I mean, don't take the criticism to heart, and I hope you can keep going with the improvements from what I have listed so far. The biggest thing by far is the verifiability – you must check the content with the sources provided. Once you get that done, the rest is rather easy. The article has potential and is already fairly well-writeen – it's just primarily that the verifiability is not there.

Also, apologies for the harsh tone after discovering the plagiarism; it probably wasn't your fault, but you can't have any of it. Please consider what would happen, for instance, if a professor caught plagiarism on a paper or essay – that would most certainly receive an "F" or a "zero".

If you want to get back with me for another review, let me know, and I can take another look. –MuZemike 21:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Unintentionally humorous place names

What method do you recommend for zapping that funny but totally OR template? Seems like something someone might get away with posting in on their user space, but I can't see it becoming an article unless someone could find a valid source. And it doesn't even have Lake Titicaca... or Boring Oregon, for that matter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I would think Templates for discussion. –MuZemike 08:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, another admin zapped it already. I should have copied its contents first. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I doubt anyone will kick any fuss ... not for an old crook like me. –MuZemike 08:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Another issue with that list is that many of them sound funny in English just by coincidence. I wouldn't be surprised if a number of seemingly-innocent English place names sound just as funny in some other languages. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Mikemikev false positive?

Hey. A few days back over on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mikemikev/Archive, a CU returned that TisTRU was one of the confirmed socks. I just got a note on my talk page about that account, and in looking into their edits, it seems that it's not really Mikemikev's modus operandi. In particular, the account has over 1,000 edits and has been registered for a year. As such I've unblocked the account, though I'm still a little wary of it. Could you take a look at this again and see if it's a false positive, or if it's really him? Thanks. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure I was correct on the CU results. I mean, one needs to remember that CU is not the definitive be-all and end-all; stuff like this does happen and needs to be checked out by looking at editing patterns and behavioral evidence. That said, you may be right about that it may be a false positive. –MuZemike 20:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Expand

Template:Expand has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. 134.253.26.6 (talk) 22:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk:2009–10 Big Ten Conference men's basketball season/GA2

Please revisit Talk:2009–10 Big Ten Conference men's basketball season/GA2.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Please take another look that that 2nd verifiability issue, as I might have given you the wrong reference by accident. –MuZemike 20:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Beatrix Potter

Hi, I've been adding to Beatrix Potter, having scrubbed up SusanneNYC's mess. A new user arrived today, removing and adding material. Would you mind having a look at the edit history - it seems a bit suspicious to me. I've put more than enough time into scrubbing up to fall into an endless loop here. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 04:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

 Confirmed as ItsLassieTime:

• DewhurstCollins (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• OralStoryteller (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• KentPhiladelphia (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• SohoSoso (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

 IP blocked –MuZemike 04:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I've removed the newest text. Will have a look at the other accounts as I have time in the next (very busy) few days. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 04:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I only deleted one article (per G5, Job Warner's Christmas) this time, in which part of it, after doing a quick spot-check was (surprise, surprise) another plagiarism. –MuZemike 04:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, and I see the others have no contribs. The IP block seems to be necessary - thanks again. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Your advice on how & where to open a can of worms

I have a proposal that I would like to make public somewhere, somehow, someday. I am unsure of where I should place this proposal idea. and to what degree you might expect a large enough group of people to review it. See this page: User:Uruiamme/Main Page proposal

Your opinion may be helpful, however, my main goal is to let a large group consider it or laugh at it or whatever they feel like doing. The Main Page is getting rather blah these days. As to where I should propose such an idea, I don't know how to choose a forum since most effort seems to be focused on editing the wikipedia, rules, and functions rather than brainstorm-ology.

Thanks, I like to saw logs! (talk) 21:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully I get a chance to read it this weekend. There is a lot of stuff going on there (not like there isn't with the current system of Main Page requests, ITN, etc.). –MuZemike 02:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I know it's a bit busy gearing up for the Home Page every day, but my impression is that wikipedia may be ready for a little more nuance; something to freshen the look/feel. I have been more or less underwhelmed with the relevance of WP:ITN... it seems rather a weak attempt to be updated and/or interesting to me. This proposal would attempt to be more intriguing, just as real wikipedians tend to be. I hate to draw the comparison, but I sort of laugh at the way the Merriam-Webster dictionary links you to odd, irrelevant words over on the right side of the screen once you look a word up. So maybe this is the "anti-In the News" proposal?! I like to saw logs! (talk) 07:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

IP block

Hi there. In March, you blocked IP 69.203.119.66 for six months. The block log[9] indicates that this was a checkuser block. However, there is nothing on the user talk page indicating the reason except for this unblock request by the IP [10], which he later deleted, indicating user was blocked as a sock of MBernal615. The user denies that, saying that he is actually User:KHamsun, which he I see from the user page was blocked a sock of Mbernal615, who was blocked as a sock of Nelsondenis248. (whew!) However, the archived SPI discussion makes no reference to the IP or KHamsun.[11].

The reason I'm bringing this up is because there's a new SPI case involving that IP and various other accounts and IPs [12], basically a replay of the SPI last March. Do you think it might be possible to clarify on the archive page that Khamsun and 69.203.119.66 were blocked as socks of Nelsondenis248? Thanks, ScottyBerg (talk) 23:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe I made that block on the behest of another CU (as I did not have CU at the time), who made the check due to possible block evasion on the part of KHamsun, at least from looking at the CheckUser log (which is only accessible to CUs). –MuZemike 23:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... ok. Would that have been Avraham? He blocked KHamsun. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:15, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd ask him if he recalls anything on that. In the meantime, I'll run the CU on that current SPI case. –MuZemike 23:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Just did, thanks. Yeah, a CU might be helpful though I actually didn't ask for one as I felt contribs were sufficient. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

By the way, it's true that SRabassa and Caguas28 are stale, but note who created their user pages. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry

Hi. I started making that last minor copyedit [13] before the section was closed. I don't know why it went through if the section was closed 1-2min earlier. Again, I apologize. -PrBeacon (talk) 09:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Just back away from the entire ANI thread, go to sleep, have a smoke or drink, whatever. –MuZemike 09:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Edits by 68.35.24.151

I noticed the edits by this user and it seems disruptive at best and without consensus at worst. Before I go on a mass rollback spree, what should be done? I have already issued one vandalism warning (Warn1) for the one on my watchlist. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Seems this has been discussed here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Further discussion here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Just lighting this up again. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm concerned of the speed of those edits, like somebody is using a bot of sorts. –MuZemike 18:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Never thought about that, but that could be also. Should I rollback them or would you like to do the honors? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Try to discuss with him first. I don't want to see a mass edit war over colors over dozens of pages. –MuZemike 18:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I started a thread here. For now, I am going to take a nap as I don't expect an immediate response. If you see one, feel free to jump in. :) Take Care....Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The anon blanked that section with the edit summary of "K, I wouldn't call it vandalism, but it was bold. Will discuss more frist in teh future." For the moment, it looks resolved, but I would keep an eye out just for editing the pages again. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Category:Hard bop ensembles

I have been re-populating this category. I currently has more members than Category:Cool jazz ensembles. I just recreated the page. I hope this is OK, there was a need for the category.BassHistory (talk) 18:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure. I can't recall if somebody else merged the list or not, but that's fine with me. –MuZemike 18:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I've never done this before, but it's not working. Could it have been merged with another category?BassHistory (talk) 18:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

You need to create the category. Include any categories which this category would cover, aka "parent categories"; for example, Category:Jazz ensembles by genre is included as a "parent category" for Category:Cool jazz ensembles. –MuZemike 18:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I got it. Thanks.BassHistory (talk) 18:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Captain Fearnought & socks

Howdy, shouldn't CFN & his socks be indef-blocked? GoodDay (talk) 19:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll defer that to any other uninvolved admin who is probably following that corresponding ANI thread. –MuZemike 20:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Perhaps you could comment at WP:ANI#Revdel re the Iamred socking issue. Looking at Iamred's contributions, the socking does seem a bit improbable. Rd232 ^talk 19:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

User:6Shot

You blcked this user for sock puppetry, their page was tagged as a sockpuppet of Wiki brah (but not by you). Anyway, wasn't that a sock of User:Editor XXV? NotARealWord (talk) 05:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, the thing is that both banned users converged (as with two more others several months ago); that should be an Editor XXV sock, from what I see from the CU results. –MuZemike 05:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I see the correction has been made. Anyways, what do you mean by "converged"? I don't think those two were conspiring with each other. NotARealWord (talk) 07:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Zombie433

I checked revision history of List of horror films: 2011 and it's seems that since November he is editing under IP range 79.213.xxx.xxx--Oleola (talk) 20:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism reverted: User:Zibran 1

MuZemike, I've reverted vandalism on Zibran 1's page. I have gaven you a favor. Can you Semi-protect that page? (He is trying to take revenge on Wikipedia! BAAAD!) 74.12.126.46 (talk) 01:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC) (Thomas)

Edit war

• Ekal Vidyalaya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Abhisheksareen (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)
  • Peacewithyou (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)
  • Indiansworldwide (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)
  • BullockCarts (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)
  • Ekalvidyalaya (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)
  • Sbhatt3 (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)
  • Mhl397 (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)
  • Virupatel (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)
  • 74.82.68.18 (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)
  • 66.194.2.9 (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)
  • 209.123.250.2 (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)

Based upon the common editing style and accusations that it is everyone else that is biased, amongst other things, I have my suspicions about one side in this edit war. Any chance of a quick check? Uncle G (talk) 14:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The only two I have found to be  Confirmed to each other are Peacewithyou and BullockCarts. The others seem either  Unrelated or  Stale. –MuZemike 19:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Garretgwozdz13

Just to let you know, in case you haven't seen it, that you're being addressed personally at User talk:Garretgwozdz13 in respect of an unblock request. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

93.97.59.17

93.97.59.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) When I saw that "HELP!!!", I was expecting the following up to be, "I'm bein' repressed!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, since Wikipedia operates similar to an anarcho-syndicalist commune, that might be a normal and expected reaction. –MuZemike 02:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Did I do this right?

Hi MuZemike. I've been trying to whittle down the list of suggestions from your GA review of Atari 2600 homebrew, and one of the things you had suggested was to move the free images to commons. I tried that with one image, uploading it to commons and tagging it with {{db-nowcommons}} here, but it's been about a month and the image is still in both places. Did I miss a step? 28bytes (talk) 02:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

That's not a significant issue as far as the GA nomination is concerned, but you can simply tag the images that you already transferred to Commons for deletion here. Just make sure they are truly free images (i.e. PD, as I think they are when I last checked, or CC-BY-SA). Just make sure you fill out those {{db-nowcommons}} templates and make sure you include the filename on Commons in that template. It will eventually get deleted on en.wiki, but if you have the Commons filenames on.wiki, you won't have much to worry about. –MuZemike 08:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. 28bytes (talk) 14:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Vandal alert.

Sorry to disturb you, but the notorious Indonesian misinformation vandal has strike again for the second time today. He is using 114.79.1.20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and has just put his misinformation on Little League related articles. I've reported him WP:AIV, but as of this writing, there have been no action. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 09:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've briefly blocked the IP, but there is nothing else on that range which requires anything else at this time. –MuZemike 09:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I've noted that he has used two addresses from the 114.79.1.* range and one from the 114.79.2.* range. But I know it's still too early and too small to warrant a rangeblock. It seems that he has been using this particular range recently, based on my list on the addresses he ever used since July last year. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 09:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The guy struck again, this time using 114.79.2.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Last edit was several minutes ago. Maybe it's time the 114.79.2.0/24 and 114.79.1.0/24 ranges (the 114.79.0.0/22 range is too big, I know) since I've already stated that he seems to use addresses from the 114.79.1.* and 114.79.2.* ranges. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 09:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

PS: BTW, please expand the rangeblock to 114.79.0.0/21 instead. He also used 114.79.5.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 114.79.1.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Thanks again. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 10:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Never mind. The range has already been blocked. But let's keep our eyes peeled. (We know what this guy's capable of doing). Sorry to disturb you, BTW. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 11:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The guy has returned once again. This time, the address he is using is 114.57.12.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Active right now. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 07:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

...and already blocked. This user is past /16, so either playing "Whack-A-Mole" or semi-protection (which may not be feasible due to the wide range of articles edited) are the only two options available here. –MuZemike 07:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, he's always doing this for a long time now (roughly 3 years) that until someone physically catches him ("beats him up" sounds too brutal) or Indonesia blocks the English Wikipedia (highly unlikely), he'll never stop. And while I always wished myself to be an admin just to stop him, I know I'm not yet admin material considering what I've been doing here lately besides stopping him. Anyway, I've requested four of those he vandalized today for semi-protection at WP:RFPP. I don't know how that'll turn out though. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 07:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

PS: I've checked the block log for /16 and that was only blocked for only 72 hours. And that was last July, ain't it? - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 07:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

User:86.154.194.76

If he cannot edit talk pages how come he can edit mine? --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 02:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

That happened about two minutes before he was blocked and just over an hour before talk page access was revoked. He hadn't been blocked yet when he posted on your page. HalfShadow 04:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I am now but I promise to be a good boy! I won't let you down! 86.154.194.76 (talk) 09:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

That is good to hear. Because if you do stuff like this or this again, you will be re-blocked for a much, much longer period of time. –MuZemike 19:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

One idea

One thing you could do, although your personal scruples probably don't allow it, is to have that unprotected talk page and then take it off your watch list. Then they could vandalize it until kingdom come and get no reaction from it, i.e. no "reward". :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

And another...

exactly identical to yesterday. *sighs* looks like we have a user in for the long hall... -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 21:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request of 70.118.245.190

Hello MuZemike. 70.118.245.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards,  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

A well thought out unblock request, almost too well thought out... This shows "Road Runner residential customers" - not business ones.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I just commented there: [14]. I think you accidentally deleted my comment :) –MuZemike 00:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, you're probably right about the WHOIS information. –MuZemike 00:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Urgh! Connection is slow tonight (but only to WP, maybe Dutch servers are stretched) = too many edit conflicts! Thanks for the comment.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Protection

Should my talk be protected beyond right now when (I think) it expires? CTJF83 chat 02:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

No, let's see what happens. We don't want to keep a user talk page protected any longer than necessary. –MuZemike 02:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I assume it will happen again tomorrow, right on track, but shit happens. CTJF83 chat 02:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

In any case, let me or another admin know if you want it unprotected, and we would be happy to oblige. –MuZemike 02:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, ya I did that twice in the last few days, it takes more than someone calling me a "faggot ass queer" to upset me. The best would be if users gave 1 warning to the vandals and then they were blocked right away. Thanks for the help! CTJF83 chat 02:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete please

First off, happy holidays! Secondly, can you delete this? I don't think it was made correctly. GamerPro64 (talk) 03:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, deleted. You may wish to direct the user to the Reference Desk or something, at the "request for peer review" didn't look like it was Wikipedia-related. –MuZemike 03:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. It looked like he/she is a one-time user. GamerPro64 (talk) 03:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

another?

This user might be worth watching considering the small party of clones that happened here today.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 03:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't readily look like this is him. Let's AGF and see what develops. Looks like more of a coincidence than anything. –MuZemike 03:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Nissan Leaf GA review

Hello, MuZemike. You have new messages at Mariordo's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

YGM

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.

Merry Christmas!

“ And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God. ” — (Alma 7:10)

The Thing ^T/_C is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:User:TTTSNB/Merry_Christmas}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Merry Christmas

Neutralhomer wishes you a Merry Christmas and hopes your day is full of the true spirit of the day. Plus, good food, good family and good times. :) Have a Great Day! :) Spread the joy of Christmas by adding {{subst:User:Neutralhomer/MerryChristmas}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Blocked editor with the email threats

He's emailed unblock-en-l. He finds it "quite sickening and disgusting" that some names of singers and some songs don't have blue links so that he can find the genre and says he has suffered much pain and hurt because he had no replies to his threatening emails! Why is it referred to WMF? Merry Chistmas! Dougweller (talk) 06:39, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Because it is flat-out wrong to threaten violence upon anyone online. Period. –MuZemike 06:43, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree entirely, I just didn't realise such cases were normally referred to WMF. Looks like I should not have responded, not that I did anything but say he was blocked for threats and I couldn't understand why anyone would threaten to put someone in hospital over the lack of some links. Dougweller (talk) 07:13, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll take the rest of this via email if you don't mind; there is some information I would rather not discuss on-wiki. –MuZemike 07:15, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Dougweller (talk) 08:58, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Common Sense Media

Thank you so much for expanding my article! What a great Christmas present! ;D --BluWik (talk) 19:15, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Not yours, but everyone's. Anyways, you're welcome. Happy Holidays! –MuZemike 19:17, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Can't email CU list

I'm having a problem with an editor hopping IPs, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Range_block_request and the link in that section to an earlier thread. NewYorkBrad suggested I email the CU list, I did and me email was 'automatically rejected'. Any idea why? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 20:05, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

You might find this interesting: [15]. Dougweller (talk) 21:26, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Noob question

Did I overlook something important when blocking 82.42.249.210? Tiderolls 07:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

No, you did nothing wrong. Using CU, I can easily tell whether or not to completely hardblock an IP. –MuZemike 07:40, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Himara

Regarding that article, I don't think that protection is necessary. There is no revert-warring going. It might look that way superficially, but a closer inspection would reveal that there are very few reverts if any. Were you notified about that article via IRC? Athenean (talk) 22:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought it looked the same type of disputing that had caused me to full-protect all the other Albania/Greece articles a while back. –MuZemike 22:33, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand, though I don't really expect any further trouble there. Anyway, it's no big deal, thanks. Athenean (talk) 22:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

It appears that this article is a target of a tactical sockaccount User:Dodona, as Future Perfect concluded in the past about Pelasgon [[16]].Alexikoua (talk) 16:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, looks like Od Mishehu got him. –MuZemike 19:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Possibly another one

Hi - I think SuzanneIAM (talk · contribs) is another one .... popped up in an article I watch today. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

And only  Possible on CheckUser results. I mean, the user does edit slightly different articles than normal. –MuZemike 19:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Got sidetracked and forgot to get back. The problem with these kinds of serial plagiarizers and sockpuppets is that everyone starts to seem suspicious. Anyway, thanks for checking. I wouldn't have relished having to work my way through the Alice in Wonderland material as well. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Clarify

Hi! I've seen your comments at WP:TFD#Template:Sockblock. However, I don't really understand what you mean with this comment. To my knowledge, there is a template named {{Sockpuppetry}}, which can tag temporarily blocked sockmasters due to abuse of multiple accounts. As for notifying sockmasters that they've been blocked temporarily for that reason, IMO the {{uw-block}} template should be used. If you can, please clarify your "addendum" comment. Thanks in advance. HeyMid (contribs) 23:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

wow

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lagoo sab - What's the Arabic word for "motherlode"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Mall Rats

Hey! Have you seen this by any chance? I just filed an SPI[17] and this started happening with "Amiel0425". I'd appreciate any assistance you could give. Thanks :> Doc talk 05:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

We cannot do anything about it. They will continue to abuse Wikipedia. I'm sorry. –MuZemike 06:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I mean, I put some blocks on, but that will not guarantee anything whatsoever. –MuZemike 06:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate that: "Amiel" was being disruptive again. I responded back at the SPI with the quote I remembered from the whole SRQ thing'[18]. I don't agree with this outlook, and it would seem almost "defeatist" to many. We can't let vandals and copyright violators run amok because "we can't stop them". Why take a shower: you're just going to get dirty again, right? I hope you don't think I'm being a "dick", but I remembered this from the last time and it struck me. I still can't see why the IP would edit Balubz's talk page like that: are proxies being used making it inconclusive? Are things stale? Well, thanks again, and have a good New Year :> Doc talk 07:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

That's the truth. The same applies to User:ItsLassieTime, User:Grundle2600, and User:Wiki brah, to name just a few. If a user is determined enough to edit Wikipedia, he or she will, regardless of any technical restrictions we put in place. –MuZemike 07:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of Wiki brah, he is probably right about what they are doing. –MuZemike 08:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

"Evil" will always be in this little wiki-world: but so will "good". We stop them, when we can, with what we can. Of course they'll never stop: but neither will those trying to stop them. Otherwise we might as well throw in the towel and leave it to the creeps. We can't "stop" crime: we can only "fight" it. I'll continue to do so, as I know you will. It's not going to get any easier, but challenge is the way it always is. Cheers :> Doc talk 08:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, I see you locked the page for Belhaven University. A relative of Paul Jennings Hill keeps on placing him in the notable alumni section and I keep removing it. There doesn't seem to be substantial evidence that he actually attended Belhaven Univeristy, but regardless, almost all university pages use this section to describe alumni with notable achievements. Being a murderer doesn't seem to count, regardless if he was trying to make a political statement or not. I'd like to ask that this change be removed since the block is in place. Also, since the person who keeps placing his name on the list is his daughter, she seems to obviously hold a strong bias to want him listed there even if he did attend this university. Looking over the other articles she has edited it seems she is interested in drumming up publicity for this person more than adding to the Belhaven University page itself. Please let me know what you think. Thanks. Nekrus (talk) 22:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not going to be changing anything while the article is full-protected. This is a pure content dispute and must be handled as such, which is discussing with the people in question, nominally at Talk:Belhaven University. If there is a conflict of interest issue, we have a noticeboard for that in which you can raise your concerns. In the meantime, I apologize for protecting The Wrong Version, but it happens; I'm sure the others would be similarly protesting if I protected the version in which you preferred. –MuZemike 22:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Sockmaster Shinas

Hi,

regarding this SPI. Can you please do a sleeper account check as well. This sockmaster usually creates multiple socks once the previous set is blocked. (If you had already done so please ignore this. I am posting this because the CU asked for a sleeper account check and your message didnt indicate if one was done and no others were found). Thanks--Sodabottle (talk) 03:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that there are quite a few users on that /16 range that share the same UAs but have completely different editing patterns to which I cannot conclude anything else at the moment. –MuZemike 03:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh ok. But he edits from a /19 range.--Sodabottle (talk) 03:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I know, but the /16 covers that /19, so I would have seen it, anyways :) –MuZemike 03:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Seeming sock puppets

Hello.

I know it's too late now, but I noted that three IP addresses have been used by a single person to vandalize pages related to Hello Kitty, Onegai My Melody, and Ni Hao, Kai-lan as they seem to support each others' edits. The IPs in question are: 76.117.98.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 71.58.37.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), and 69.242.55.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), which are addresses used by the vandal who was using the now blocked 68.44.142.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). They seem like they're used the same person to me due to the kinds of edits the former three dished out. Just discovered this after reverting edits at the Kai-lan article (first using an anonymous IP myself in my sister's laptop before logging in with my own laptop). Shall I report this to WP:AN/I or what? - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 07:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

PS: BTW, this has nothing to do with the Indonesian misinformation vandal as this one uses a different MO: connecting them with Jimmy Neutron. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 07:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, we can't block any ranges, so requesting semi-protection would be the next logical step if this is clear vandalism. –MuZemike 07:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Might try to request semi-protection on the Kai-lan article, but I doubt that would be granted because the said sock puppet vandal just did so about three hours ago, and the only other dubious edits there were some insertion of unconfirmed info, most from at least a day to several days ago. (I tried with Digimon: The Movie in relation to the Indonesian vandal, but the request was declined due to lack of recent vandalism.) - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 07:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

PS: I have to clarify something, which may have caused some misunderstanding, hence my edited earlier PS above. Currently blocked "puppetmaster" (68.44.142.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) uses a different MO, hence the noting of edits on "sockpuppets" 76.117.98.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 71.58.37.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), and 69.242.55.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I hope this clears everything up for you. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 07:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MuZemike. You have new messages at NerdyScienceDude's talk page.
Message added 14:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

~NerdyScienceDude 14:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Pararubbas

From looking at the edit history at Template:Portugal national under-21 football team Managers, you can see that this vandal continues, i guess he has gone over 60 socks now. Also there, even the anon addresses are his, except the one that starts with an "8". Please block both accounts, and delete the article if you see it fit, these "users" have to learn the hard way.

This chap has been here for roughly the same time as i (four years), and here's the only time he talked to anyone (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Satori_Son#Deleted_pages). Other than that, no talks, no summaries, no nothing! People, including admins, tell him to stop creating new accounts, delete articles he starts, nevermind! He creates them again and signs up again after his block, i see he will not get tired, well neither will i! P.S. In Agostinho Oliveira, i found this User:Asda09, only one contribution (here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Asda09), but strikingly similar to his other accounts (the numbers mainly), is there a possibility to find out if this IP also edits from England? Thanks in advance.

Attentively, happy new year - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 18:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked both accounts as socks of Pararubbas; I couldn't find any sleepers, though. And no, I am afraid I would not be able to tell you his location (unless you know that he has edited anonymously; you can find from his IPs), as that would violate policy on my part if I did. Thank you, –MuZemike 22:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you very much Mike, indeed. But you missed User:Ijn089, that's another sock. Boy oh boy, kind of confusing... Cheers - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 01:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jeff Unaegbu/Archive

Was it an WP:ILLEGIT sockpuppet trying to deceive other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, or otherwise violate community standards? Or was it a WP:SOCK#LEGIT simply doing similar work? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Should be the former. I am not seeing how that one blocked account would be a legit alternate account, given that both were editing exactly the same article at the same time. Moreover, judging from this edit, this looks like some organization or something, and would have been blocked anyways as a username violation. In any case, if User:Jeff Unaegbu was not blocked, then that's fine, though I would recommend some sort of warning and/or a question asking about that other account. –MuZemike 22:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Might be, perhaps... but is it really? The edit diff you shared might almost seem like a declaration of COI, rather than an attempt at deception... and the User:Jeff Unaegbu account made only one very minor edit[19] to the Jeff Unaegbu article, perhaps out of rank newness and lack of understanding, and no others. If the Jeff Unaegbu account is indeed Unaegbu, he should be made aware of WP:COI, but if it is not Unaegbu he should be counselled to immediately request an account namechange, and to not use any alternate accounts, even if legitimate. I read WP:REALNAME and WP:UNC... which led me to WP:CHU... and the slightly confusing WP:CHUG and more so WP:CHUS... and these change actions require a bureaucrat. I think if counseled, and walked through the procedure, the user will be amenable. As to why I am questioning this...? Well, we have far too few editors who are even willing to concern themselves with topic related to Nigeria, and so articles on Nigerian writers and artists are under-represented in the project... and per WP:CSB we should really try to encourage editors interested in expanding that field. And I note that User:Jeff Unaegbu was never welcomed with the standard template that offers advice on how to work within the community. I'll rectify that immediately. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Common Sense Media

The penultimate day of the year. Thank you from the DYK project Victuallers (talk) 20:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

ANI notification

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dusti^*poke* 17:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2011 WikiCup!

Hello, happy new year and welcome to the 2011 WikiCup! Your submissions' page can be found here and instructions of how to update the page can be found here and on the submissions' page itself. From the submissions' page, a bot will update the main scoresheet. Our rules have been very slightly updated from last year; the full rules can be found here. Please remember that you can only receive points for content on which you have done significant work in 2011; nominations of work from last year and "drive-by" nominations will not be awarded points. Signups are going to remain open through January, so if you know of anyone who would like to take part, please direct them to Wikipedia:WikiCup/2011 signups. The judges can be contacted on the WikiCup talk page, on their respective talk pages, or by email. Other than that, we will be in contact at the end of every month with the newsletter. If you want to stop or start receiving newsletters, please remove your name from or add your name to this list. Good luck! J Milburn and The ed17 12:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Stevedimples

I had him down as a sock of Brucejenner because of Mumia Abu-Jamal and Same-sex marriage in the United States and the ... errm ... 'creative' usernames, but one thing for certain is that there's a whole bunch of  Confirmed socks under there =) - Alison ^❤ 02:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, one of the accounts suggests a connection to User:SkagitRiverQueen, but it was only tagged as a suspected sock. There was also the lack of "faggotry" in the edits. –MuZemike 02:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Tru dat. Either way, no unblock. if there's another decline, dollars to donuts he signs off with "Faggots!!" - Alison ^❤ 02:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I probably tagged that sock as "suspected". No CU backup, you see. I've asked for evidence of the SRQ socks many times and been stonewalled. You want behavior to tie it to SRQ? There is no one more expert in that than me. That's the only way to go, I thought... Doc talk 08:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Television template

Hey MuZemike, I'm Hunter Kahn. Recently, over at the WikiProject Television talk page, an administrator was good enough to add the Television Episodes task force to the template, but did not finish up by adding the assessment information so that we could generate an assessment table for that task force. I see you are an admin who has edited that template in the past, and was hoping you could help me out and add that in for me? Thanks in advance! — Hunter Kahn 14:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• Never mind, it's been done. Thanks though! — Hunter Kahn 16:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, good, because I don't remember what I did right :) –MuZemike 18:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Questions about a sock puppet inventigation

When you checked the user NotARealWord as a sock puppet of Wiki_brah,was a checkuser done? He continues the same behavior, now including quoting the WIki-brah sock puppets in attacks on me. I just wanted to check. Thanks. Mathewignash (talk) 20:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

If I recall, yes, he was completely unrelated. –MuZemike 20:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Jacob Hnri 6

Any chance we can widen the rangeblock from 99.35.24.0/22 to 99.35.24.0/21? Elockid ^(Talk) 22:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Got it. Told you we'd be hearing from this vandal a lot. –MuZemike 23:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. You're really on top of things. I was gonna block 99.88.80.0/22 but found at that you already blocked it. Elockid ^(Talk) 16:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy MuZemike's Day!

MuZemike has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, so I've officially declared today as MuZemike's Day! For being a great person and awesome Wikipedian, enjoy being the star of the day, MuZemike! Signed, Neutralhomer A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, click here. Have a Great Day...Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Prairespark

Hey. A bunch of other editors were mentioned in the other users comments section. Did you happen to check those, or are they unrelated? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to annoy you again, but an editor added another account onto that case. :/ — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

IP 99.38.126.156

I suggest you block him a little longer than two weeks, his actions have been like this since September, being blocked for two weeks and still did not stop. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 19:48 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll have to get back to you, as I just discovered something interesting with regards to this IP. –MuZemike 23:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2011

I'm requesting that this article be unfrozen until a sockpuppet investigation can be completed on User:Ofenian. I am in #wikipedia on freenode attempting to address this issue. I am also citing Ofenian's mis-understanding WP:Consensus and WP:ITR. I believe that both your, and Ofenian's actions are in violation of current consensus, and fail the ITR concept as these edits improve the quality of the article. Trelane (talk) 00:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for protecting The Wrong Version of the article, but it was clear that the edit warring was not stopping after established users (who should know better) continued where the IPs and new users left off. Please continue to discuss the issues at hand on the talk page; also, I recommend keeping such dispute discussions on-wiki, as not everybody uses IRC, and we don't want to shut those users out. –MuZemike 00:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

New block needed

6 months (to the day) that your block on 24.161.44.59 expired, they're back adding unsourced descent and religion categories to biography articles against WP:EGRS and WP:BLPCAT. Would it be possible to reblock them to prevent further disruption? --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 03:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

MuZemike, you're my hero. Mwah..I kiss you!--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 03:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

1

Thanks!. I thought--well, you know what I thought. I appreciate the explanation. Drmies (talk) 03:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Banned user?

Hello! Could you take a look at 199.126.224.245 again? To me, it looks like the banned user has returned. HeyMid (contribs) 11:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Jacob Hnri again

So a couple more Empty Trend accounts, specifically 14-19, popped up after you hardened one of your blocks. Could look into these accounts? Elockid ^(Talk) 05:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Userpage cleanup

		The Barnstar of Reliable Deletionism
		Hey there, congrats on speedily cleaning up a certain userpage which was unfairly ...visited. Just wanted to let you know your efforts didn't go unnoticed! Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 23:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I suppose (?!?) I didn't know such a barnstar existed, and I don't know what I deleted, either. –MuZemike 23:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Have you got another person hacking into your account?!?! Here's the event log:

(diff | hist) . . User talk:Kleopatra‎; 16:52 . . (+360) . . Magistri Novi (talk | contribs | block) (edit summary removed)

(diff | hist) . . m User talk:Kleopatra‎; 16:56 . . (-360) . . MuZemike (talk | contribs | block) (Reverted edits by Magistri Novi (talk) to last version by Kleopatra) [rollback]

(Deletion log); 16:56 . . MuZemike (talk | contribs | block) changed revision visibility of User talk:Kleopatra: removed content, edit summary for 1 revision (RD3: Purely disruptive material)

Hope you didn't get hacked! Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

If you want to unhide that edit, which amounted to a banned user calling another user "a fucking cunt", go ahead; I won't lose any sleep over it. –MuZemike 23:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Heh, I happen to know her somewhat and think it's better left deleted...trust me. See ya round! Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Revdel request

Hi, could you revdel this revision? It seems to fall under citerion 2. Jarkeld (talk) 23:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Got it. It's also borderline private information, but it looks like RD2 to say the least. –MuZemike 23:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

98.82.60.61

Can someone shut this guy up? Slightsmile (talk) 03:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Devil May Cry 2

Geeze MuZe, once again you reviewed an article before I get a chance to do so. However, you may have to remove it due to step one, which says,

Raise issues at article Talk:

• In this step, concerned editors attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article. Articles in this step are not listed on this page.

GamerPro64 (talk) 21:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

MuZemike is a robot, didn't you know that? :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, given that I had a rather difficult time finding any vested editors that are still around, on top of that the talk page has not been touched since August 2008, I doubt anyone is going to step forward there. –MuZemike 21:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

But still, its gonna have to be restarted as I already told Dana Boomer. GamerPro64 (talk) 21:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Devil May Cry 2 FAR

Hi MuZemike - There has been a recent (a couple of months ago) change to FAR instructions that requires that article talk page notification of problems be made before a FAR is initiated. Because of this, I have removed the review of Devil May Cry 2 from WP:FAR and placed it on hold. I have also made the notification to the article talk page. If a week or so goes by with no improvements to the article, the review can be replaced on the FAR page. You can do this yourself, or ping me and I will do it. Please let me know if you have any questions, Dana boomer (talk) 23:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I wasn't aware (I think my last trip to FAR was about 3-4 months ago or something), but I can copypaste my issues on the talk page if that's the way to do it, now. –MuZemike 23:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem, I figured that's what the deal was. I made a new section on the talk page with a link to your comments on the FAR, but if you wish to copy and paste your comments you can do that as well. Thanks for the quick response. Addendum: And I completely missed the post just above my GamerPro. My apologies for the dual notice. Dana boomer (talk) 23:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC) (edited 23:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC))

File:Angelina Jolie on the set of Changeling by Monique Autrey (cropped).jpg

Did I miss something? I had already uploaded it locally because it was not protected at Commons, and my understanding was that it did not need its own protection because it benefited from cascading protection. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 01:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

That's odd, because I was able to upload it myself without getting a "reuploaded with" message or something like that. It's when the image is not from Commons when cascading protection covers it, is that right? If so, then I probably got confused over when it should be protected. –MuZemike 01:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Strange you didn't get a warning, but that might be your SUPA ADMIN POWERZ or something like that (I've never tried to upload over a protected file - mmmm, beans...) My understanding is that, if it's protected at Commons, then all is well (because that stops vandals at Commons uploading a new "improved" version, and cascading MP protection prevents upload of a new version with added penises here). If it's not protected at Commons, then a local copy is needed here (then vandals can do what they like at Commons, as it won't be seen by us, as the local file takes priority, protected by cascading MP protection). However, it's been a while since I used to upload MP images (for DYK, back in the day...) on a regular basis, so I may have lost touch with how things work. Bencherlite^Talk 01:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brucejenner/Archive

Is it possible to range block my dear friend BJ? CTJF83 chat 01:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

You got some new socks to show me in which I can check? I don't have his range on me right now. –MuZemike 01:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, they're all over the place, so I'm afraid there's nothing CU can do here. However, I did block one extra sock from his "mobile range", User:Clownrupture. –MuZemike 01:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Just look at my talk page every day or two, and you'll find more socks. There has to be something we can do? Daily sock searches? CTJF83 chat 01:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh! Is pending changes still going on...or did that die? CTJF83 chat 01:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I would argue that's not going to work very well, as the edits will still show up in the edit history for everyone to see. –MuZemike 02:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Pending changes won't work, or daily sock searches? CTJF83 chat 02:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant Pending Changes. It's not very good against frequent vandalism. –MuZemike 02:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Can we still do it though? I'd rather legit IPs be able to query me (as is on the page currently). At least BJ won't be able to remove my message, and new users can still query. And honestly, the edits showing up in history don't bother me, frankly I "oppose" if you will, his edit summaries being removed. CTJF83 chat 02:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Darnit, I can't pull it up on talk pages. I think it's only on for the Mainspace. –MuZemike 02:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, well, damn! Ok, thanks though...is it pretty much dead anyway? CTJF83 chat 02:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

No, it's still on, but I know we're not supposed to utilize it right now. But I didn't know it was only activated for the Mainspace. –MuZemike 02:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

How can I get/propose it for talk pages too. CTJF83 chat 02:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I think effective revert, block, ignore is the only (and most effecitve) thing possible to do in this case. Don't worry about having frequent vandalism on your user / user talk page; you're not the only one who has to live with that! HeyMid (contribs) 15:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

That's true, I will go with that. CTJF83 chat 21:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks! Here's a puppy from the basket! Basket of Puppies 17:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

JoshGlickman

Doesn't seem that he'd be allowed to make these edits even with a username change, per WP:COI and WP:FAQ/Organizations. Additionally, per the institute's employee page, it looks like he actually works there. Blueboy96 19:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, I mean if he's still blatantly spamming or repeatedly adding in copyvios, then feel free to block. CU is very likely not going to tell you anything new, because I think you already figured everything out :) –MuZemike 19:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't have my mop for the moment--haven't since last summer. Oh, to have it back ... Blueboy96 19:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't even notice you weren't an admin right now. My bad. –MuZemike 19:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

No prob ... I probably would have blocked him had I been one--I'm that rougish. Blueboy96 20:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Likely Jessica Liao sock

Very first edit ever is to the talk page for WP:List of banned users, which is trademark JL [20]. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Frantzedward.cha

Could he still be blockable just for disruptive editing even if not a proven sock? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/JacobJosephFrank

Hey Muz,

Just curious whether you looked at User:JacobJosephFrank and User:MosesPorges in relation to User:96.231.31.238. If they are all tracing Los Angeles it strikes me that this should be a  Likely. But perhaps you're not allowed to consider this for WP:OUTING concerns? NickCT (talk) 20:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I can say that the two accounts are not anywhere even close to LA. –MuZemike 21:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmmmm.... Ok. Perhaps  Unlikely is the right call then.... Curious. Seems like v. strong behavioral evidence. Thanks for your attention and best, NickCT (talk) 21:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's very much possible that it could be two separate people who know each other IRL and working together, but it doesn't look like they're the same person. –MuZemike 21:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Persistent Sock

Hey,

I'm messaging a few admins to see if I can get someone to look at this persistent sock issue. Think you could help? NickCT (talk) 20:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

George H. Moody Middle School

Hi, MuZemike, would you protect George H. Moody Middle School to prevent the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Indextookviewsgoals sockpuppets from their disruptive undoing of the redirect? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for requesting, Cunard, and thanks for doing so, MuZemike. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 00:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, unblock request

Hi. :) IP 24.205.188.70 e-mailed the unblock mailing list to request an unblock with essentially the same information he has placed at User talk:24.205.188.70. Since he's a check-user block, I told him that I would alert you to his request and that he might watch the IP talk page in case you had any questions. Since I don't know the background, of course, I have no idea if an early release is feasible or advisable in this case, but I presume you do. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:DENY deletions

Hello. Regarding WP:DENY deletions, I'd like to point you to this recent discussion. Cheers, HeyMid (contribs) 14:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy tenth anniversary of Wikipedia!

File:Verre de whisky.jpg

Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia!

HeyMid (contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:User:HJ Mitchell/WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Message received at 22:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Erik Bethke

Hi MuZemike,

I've had a go at a clean-up of the Erik Bethke article re. your COI tag in August 2009. I have removed anything that was weasely or trivial and left what might appear to be plain facts - all still uncited... but I think it has a more neutral feel to it. Make any changes or additions that you think fit. Best wishes, Acabashi (talk) 01:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Aconcagua (video game)

Materialscientist (talk) 18:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

I missed that-- would you mind sending me an e-mail to let me know what it was? We've got a large sock farm operating. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Dittos. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Heart

Is this someone worth keeping an eye on? Slightsmile (talk) 02:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. I think someone made a mistake placing something on that article. –MuZemike 02:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Semiprotestion of Sacrifice (video game)

Thinking loud: we know him and block his proxies on the spot. After semiprotection, he sequentially moves to other main-page articles. Is it worth protecting? What do you think is the best solution? Materialscientist (talk) 03:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, besides the edit filter (which I'm sure can be easily dodged), I can't see much other option, unless it's suggested that we just let them continue to vandalize Today's Featured Article incessantly. –MuZemike 03:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

To answer your question

Yup considering editor in question has been trolling the page for weeks now blanking the section and then trying to tell us what he thinks is confirmed sources and what isn't. Yeah, with that kind of crappy attitude and no regards for coming up with a better way, I'd say so. Kelzorro (talk) 17:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

OK. Basically, there is no excuse for that, and the next time I see you make an attack like that, I am going to block you. Moreover, the discussion page Talk:Aaahh!!! Real Monsters is there for a reason – use it. If I see anymore edit warring from you two, I will lock that page down and force both of you to discuss (civilly) on the talk page; I may also consider blocks on both of you for edit warring. Now, please, play nice. –MuZemike 17:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Socking, can you check?

Hi. We've got a situation of some nasty nationalistic incivility with User:Shah 88. I blocked him for 24 hours in response to this ANI thread, whereupon he uploaded another nationalistic slur to Commons (now deleted, documented at that ANI thread) and evidently created sock account Indog (a play on the slur he was using) to harass the same contributor he'd insulted before. On the basis of that, I extended his block to indef. He declares that he was not Indog, however, and it is possible that somebody who does not like him spoofed the sock to result in precisely this outcome. There is no doubt at all that Indog is a sock of somebody, so I know it is not fishing to ask for a check of him. I know it is generally discouraged to do checks on named accounts to eliminate suspicion, but I am inclined in this case to think it worthwhile. Besides which, if it is Shah 88, it may be necessary to establish his range for future use. Would you be comfortable checking? I would be most appreciative, as no matter what led to this nasty bit of bigotry I would not wish to indef somebody under a faulty assumption. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Much appreciated! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Mike. I'm sorry to bother you again, but it looks like this sock business may be more complex. A few days ago, a different account was blocked pulling the same bigoted garbage against the same user: User:Indon sial. Can you tell if this relates to either the new account or Shah 88? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

your use of revdel is being discussed

Your name hasn't exactly come up yet, but a revdel done by you is presented as evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Clarification of RD3. At a glance I'm afraid I have to agree this looks like an overzealous use of revdel, I'm hoping you can provide some insight as to why you thought it was needed for such run-of-the-mill vandalism. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi there MIKE, VASCO from Portugal here,

An anonymous IP (see "contributions" here Special:Contributions/109.108.8.240) continues to vandalize Henok Goitom's article (keep in mind inflating statistics IS vandalism), what do you think is more appropriate, protecting the page or blocking the IP (it seems it's being always used by the same "user", with the same M.O.)?

Thank you very much in advance, keep up the good work - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 15:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• You can start by not writing what you are writing in edit summaries. Yes, vandals are annoying. Don't do what you're doing in edit summaries, though. Since I'm here, to save MuZemike some time I've revoked the editing privileges of the IP address, which seems to have done nothing more than football-related vandalism for two months, for six months. Uncle G (talk) 15:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

FYI

I do hope that you didn't feel the need to defend yourself at the RfC because of me. The edits I chose were simply the most convenient options, and I did try to note that you were well within policy to delete those items. I simply feel that's not what the policy should say, and so that's what I said. I totally believe your actions were proper. Regards, Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 02:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. You are certainly correct in raising concerns over how RD3 is used in practice compared to the relevant policies in play here. However, I think it's human nature to "defend one's own actions", especially when they have been referred to as "overzealous" and "inappropriate" (which is not your fault in any way). –MuZemike 21:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Stuffing the nonexistent ballot box

• Survival capital (AfD discussion)
  • 212.200.65.74 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • Wukicevic (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Ivaland (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Anna O'Leary (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

We really just need formal confirmation of the obvious, here. The Anna O'Leary account which you already looked at in conjunction with someone else at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PhaedrusM, is clearly not a good faith account, even if checkuser shows that there's two people rather than just one. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 15:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Hope you have a pen and paper ready, as the following accounts are  Confirmed as each other:

• DJ Sammy222 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Lee Reece74 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Katie Sweetmore (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Anna O'Leary (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Existevent78 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Wildhorses 1010 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Smiler68 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Andy seers (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Paula oaks (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Katie Sweetmore (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Harry 88r (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Adam Kallender (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Elizabeth Steinberg (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Elizabeth Charles (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Wukicevic and Ivaland are  Unrelated, as they're on a completely separate continent. Also,  IP blocked with regards to the vote-stacking socks' IP. No comment with regards to the above-reported IP. –MuZemike 01:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PhaedrusM. I wasn't the only person to notice, and there's been work in parallel here. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 02:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Frederick Warne & Co

This is another Suzanne / It's Lassie time page. Essentially it's either full of inaccuracies, potential copy-vios, and gives undue weight to Potter (this is a prestigious firm). My inclination is to delete the page, but because it's a prestigious firm should probably be stubbed down instead - at some point I'd get around to rebuilding. Is it okay for me to delete what's there, or do I need a justification? Also, some of the contributors in the history might bear looking at. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

As long as you are able to point to me what the material is a copyvio of (I know for this sockmaster, most of her copyvios are from print sources), and you have a short stub ready to go, I would probably be more comfortable deleting the entire article and starting from scratch, especially if nearly all the edits have been tainted by copyright violations. –MuZemike 01:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Haven't had a chance to check specifically, am working on The Tale of Mrs. Tiggy-Winkle at the moment and linked into the article. I do know the company from Toy book and Edmund Evans both articles I wrote, and know Warne published more than Potter books. I don't mind if you delete; If it's stubbed I would rebuild because I have articles linking to it, but won't get to it immediately. Looking at it, it seems to be a summary of information from print sources, but at the moment I only have one out on loan. Norman Warne should be deleted as well. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Requested Move

There is a move being requested here and it isn't anything that needs a long drawn-out discussion, just a simple change in callsign. Only problem is there is a disambig page at WBZZ, so I don't know how you want to work around that. If you could take care of that, it would be much appreciated. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Dota 2

Thanks very much for reviewing Dota 2 and giving it start status. I've expanded the article to having a decent intro paragraph, but there just is not enough legitimate information available. However, I will look to greatly expanding it in the future and it is my hope that the article that I originally created could become a featured article, with a decent amount of dedication from others. DarthBotto _talk•cont 03:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Greetings

I just wanted to let you know that the childishness continues - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Naughtiestboy - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Another_account - SatuSuro 09:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit War Trolling

Recently on the List of The Angry Video Game Nerd episodes, User:Shakzor has been adding Youtube as a source. User:duffbeerforme has been removing the sources. Shakzor has intentionally reverted his edit several times. Now the page is protected for 3 weeks. But Shakzor is threatening to continue reverting once protection is lifted. IP's are now encouraging him to proceed on with his actions. Does this count as Trolling? Please reply, thanks. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 10:30 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Wario's Woods

Hey, thanks for the assessment of the Wario's Woods article! I have some comments, though:

• First, about references: the references I've supplied do cover the scope of the article– I thought that putting references at the end of blocks of related information would suffice, rather than a reference after every other sentence, as the article might become cluttered with references that point to the same source. (The whole paragraph about the Time Gauge could be seen in the single reference, aside from the minute details, such as Birdo or Wario appearing.). I do see, however, where references are clearly necessary, and I will address those. I was able to find a scan of Nintendo Power, Vol 78, November 1995, where it covers only the NES version, strange enough. Link I haven't been able to locate any scan or excerpt from the December 1994 issue, though.
• As for reviews: there are actually very few reviews that I can find. GameRankings lists the Nintendo Power review as its only one, and Metacritic has no reviews at all. Only IGN and Gamespot seem to be the only Wikipedia-accepted sources I can find. Most reviews I've come across are "reader reviews," which are of course, non-notable. I did find one review that seems fair and professionally written (Link), but I don't know if it's notable enough for inclusion. Any thoughts on this?
• I went and removed the sentence in the Re-Releases section that you dubbed original research.

Thanks! --ThomasO1989 (talk) 05:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll comment at Talk:Wario's Woods. –MuZemike 21:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I've added a lot more references to the article, removed the original research, and expanded the Reception section by three reviews, also changed a few other areas. The rumored Wii remake was indeed a hoax. Let me know what you think of the article! --ThomasO1989 (talk) 20:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

YGM

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.

- Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burger Wars

I dont understand your closure as delete. Maybe a headcount supports that outcome, but quality of arguments do not. The nomination is terrible, coz it's not a dicdef. Mandsford's delete argument "What a waste of an article, as this could have been more than a dictionary definition" is logically incoherent, if not absurd, as he says there is article potential (i.e. it should be kept), though arguably unrealized at present - and again, it is not a dicdef. Jaque Hammer's delete argument "because the article starts out: 'The Burger Wars is a term ...'" is a severely myopic formalism. Milowent says "We ideally should have coverage of the actual wars somewhere". Uncle G objections relate to the title, which he claims is slang (I disagree) - and he laments current lack of coverage. Well, I (easily) found coverage, besides the Gscholar there is an entire chapter in the book Marketing Mistakes, (10th Ed.) on "burger wars" as I said in the AfD - evidently it's much more than a dicdef, and coverage exissts. Please add this reasoning to the now closed AfD for records. I would like you to overturn the outcome, or at least relist. MrCleanOut (talk) 10:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

First off, apologies for not replying back to you earlier, as I was away for the entire past weekend. Secondly, as I mentioned in the AFD result, there was a clear consensus toward some sort of deletion, in which I closed as a redirect to the benefit of as many people concerned and to preserve edit history. Finally, while you say that I was "headcounting", I can argue that if I used the quality of arguments and closed otherwise, I would be merely "super-voting". That being said, I'm afraid I have to stand by my AFD close. Regards, –MuZemike 15:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

sorry about the subst on the sock tag

I can never remember if they are supposed to be substed or not. :/ Syrthiss (talk) 18:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed sock still editing through IP account

Back in December you confirmed the link between User:Selma Simpson, User:68.70.27.96, and User:Josh Rumage in this SPI report and blocked the accounts. Also mentioned in the report was User: 66.194.51.34, however they remain unblocked. As of today the 66.194.51.34 address continues to add unsourced or poorly sourced information to Josh Rummage/Selma Simpson targeted articles. Can it be blocked as well? --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

IP has been blocked, along with a few other socks of him that I discovered. –MuZemike 18:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow - that was super speedy. Thanks for the help! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

MiszaBot is apparently very sensitive

Hello! I think I found the issue with one of the threads not being archived – see here. In the timestamp, there is no comma after the digital time. That probably proves MiszaBot is very sensitive in regards to timestamping. HeyMid (contribs) 21:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

diff lost in shuffle?

I think this diff may have gotten lost in the RevDels and may be legit. If so, can it be restored?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 06:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it wasn't; it still contained a patently disruptive edit summary in it, and the only stuff that was involved in the diff was said vandalism. That was why I RevDeleted that one (no offense to the person who reverted). Moreover, in the future, users need to be careful not to include the disruptive material in the edit summary when reverting (hence rollback). –MuZemike 06:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing that up. I thought an innocent IP had gotten mixed into the bunch and caught in a crossfire but I never actually saw that post. I had tried to revert some of the other posts but was beat...I was trying to use "restore this version" in Twinkle which wouldn't leave an edit summary of the mess but it is apparently slower than other methods. Thank you for the help.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 15:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I see they removed the whois tag again. I reviewed their contribs and am surprised at the vandalism, especially considering they are advising others on not biting, etc. from their first edit. This is someone socking and fixed at this IP unlike the actual attacker who was using IPs all over the place. Would you mind looking over the users contribs and talk page history? They are involved at ANI and tweaking ArbCom cases. I'm thinking that it may occur to you who this may be.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 13:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Block of Wikipedian explorer

Greetings! I see you blocked Wikipedian explorer (talk · contribs) yesterday for abuse of multiple accounts.

I blocked 190.234.1.221IP (talk · contribs) yesterday for a username violation, and he requested a username change today to Wikipedian explorer. I've already declined that request.

Is this a coincidental name choice, or do you think those two accounts are linked? There wasn't enough on the block log or contribution history of Wikipedian explorer for me to assess it further; that's why I'm asking you. —C.Fred (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll email you the details as I do not want to be inadvertently revealing any private information. –MuZemike 18:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Kaverijha23

You just blocked Kaverijha23 (talk · contribs) for block evasion. I'm almost sure this is actually a new sock of Ppwrong (talk · contribs). See initial report here, where you concluded that he was a sock. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

(acutally, another admin asked me the exact same thing two seconds before you did) However, Ppwrong is  Stale, but my guess is that the behavior (as well as the IPs) matches that of Padmalakshmisx (talk · contribs), which was reported about a week ago at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Padmalakshmisx. I'll make a deeper check here. –MuZemike 22:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I am quite convinced that it is Ppwrong. Kindly see the history of this page as an example. Again, the same kind of editing and a very similar IP range (61...). Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

 Confirmed:

• Padmalakshmisx (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Vividdoor12 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Roughstrikes (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Kaverijha16 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Kaverijha23 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Some IPs and some ranges have been blocked. I don't really care about Ppwrong either, as long as the account is blocked and the current disruption stops. –MuZemike 22:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Re, Next Bond Video Game

I would prefer the article regarding the next Bond game is not deleted as it is a article for the next game.

--Smokeyfire (talk) 01:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)Smokeyfire--Smokeyfire (talk) 01:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing except speculation which is already included in the series article. We do not create separate articles with nothing but speculative information. –MuZemike 01:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok then thats fine --Smokeyfire (talk) 01:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)Smokeyfire--Smokeyfire (talk) 01:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I mean, once we get more information, development info, etc., we can start one; however, I strongly feel that right now is far too early, given that we only have are leaks, so far. Moreover, Bond 23 is currently in limbo, so we don't even know if that is going to come out anytime soon. –MuZemike 01:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Sock puppet check?

Do you know how I can go about checking/blocking a sock puppet? The users Markelmitchell, 4.227.58.62, and 4.227.61.15 both made the same exact unconstructive edit to Late Registration. I've posted a minor warning to the IP ones who first made the edit, but it seems like a waste of time warning the other. Dan56 (talk) 19:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

You have mail

Hi, MuZemike! Please check your e-mail. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 10:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Mark Church (Stratford, Connecticut)

Note the nature of the AfD (expired) and the tag at the top (closing). Could you please try to avoid commenting? It's in the formal close process, and I'm going to have to disregard any comments made after this anyway. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 02:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Somehow, without reading the template, I thought that was a {{rally}} template on top :/ –MuZemike 02:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem! Right, now closed. Ironholds (talk) 02:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Need an Updated Rangeblock

This guy from North Dakota is back. The rangeblock ran up and he is back in true form tonight. Let's go 2 weeks this time. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

You were offline, so I asked User:Materialscientist, and he reblocked the 69.178.192.0/18 range. This is the same North Dakota Telephone Co./daktel.com guy from a week or so ago. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you please review...

User_talk:CraigWilliamsPDX#Unblock.3F - he is caught in one of your rangeblocks.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I have granted the user an IP block exemption, as there is no way I am going to modify that rangeblock. –MuZemike 20:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 January newsletter

We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. Signups are now closed, and we have 129 listed competitors, 64 of whom will make it to round two. Congratulations to The Bushranger (submissions), who, at the time of writing, has a comfortable lead with 228 points, followed by Hurricanehink (submissions), with 144 points. Four others have over 100 points. Congratulations also go to Yellow Evan (submissions), who scored the first points in the competition, claiming for Talk:Hurricane King/GA1, Miyagawa (submissions), who scored the first non-review points in the competition, claiming for Dognapping, and Jarry1250 (submissions) who was the first in the competition to use our new "multiplier" mechanic (explanation), claiming for Grigory Potemkin, a subject covered on numerous Wikipedias. Thanks must also go to Jarry1250 for dealing with all bot work- without you, the competition wouldn't be happening!

A running total of claims can be seen here. However, numerous competitors are yet to score at all- please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. The number of points that will be needed to reach round two is not clear- everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, 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 22:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: You've been nominated for GA

That's hilarious! It won't pass though. It's all primary sources. --Teancum (talk) 23:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

GAN review/reference linking

In this GAN review you noted that only the first occurrence of a publisher in the references should be wikilinked. Is there a policy somewhere for that? It came up in another GAN review. --Teancum (talk) 01:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:OVERLINK (as its complement WP:UNDERLINK) normally prescribes how often something should be linked in an article. However, I've been a bit lax on that guideline as of late; as long as there is a link on that somewhere within the vicinity of what the reader is reading, I have let a couple of extra wikilinks go; I would say there is a common sense element that needs to be exercised here as to what (and how much) something should be linked. I tend to be more conservative on linking, though. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (linking) has the entire beef on linking guidelines.

Actually, overlinking was one of the big things in which reviewers saw I was doing quite a bit the first articles I did when I was relatively new. So you can say that is my motivation to keep the amount of linking down to a reasonable amount. –MuZemike 05:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Could you review once more

Hey, I took your suggestion and added to the Dota 2 article. There is now a full paragraph for the intro, along with literally all the material available for the gameplay and development included. Would you be able to bump it up to a C-class article now, as it has everything unveiled thus far included? It will include more material as more about the game is unveiled, but for now I think it is as good as it can get. DarthBotto _talk•cont 18:57, 02 February 2011 (UTC)

Maniac Mansion

The collaboration is underway. When you have time, I could really use scans/photos/etc. of the game's reviews in those magazines you mentioned. I'm handling Reception, and any such material would be a huge help. Thanks. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry from my schoolmates

Hi MuZemike, User:KFCGrapeSoda1 through to 10 are accounts created by a schoolmate of mine, who created nonsense pages or inserted vandalism into existing articles. This is the same user as User:BrackBoii. I'd request that the IP blocks already placed on my school IPs be strengthened to include account creation prevention. Regards, —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 12:45pm • 01:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I duck blocked them plus User:KFCGrapeSoda69 and User:KFCGrapeSoda1337 which were registered the same day that some of the others were (and also in 3 minutes they registered 6 accounts). I used this tool to find them all. --Bsadowski1 01:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Brian, I'll continue to monitor activities in my school. Cheers, —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 9:26am • 22:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Next Bond Video Game

Unfortunately, it looks like this one will have to go to AfD, my friend. There's a previous (contested) PROD in the history so, much as I would like to delete it, I had to decline your PROD. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Devil May Cry 2 FAR

Hi MuZemike - It has been over two weeks since you initiated the work for the Devil May Cry 2 FAR. If you think that enough work has been completed, please let me know and I can delete the FAR page. If not enough work has been completed, please feel free to retransclude the review to WP:FAR, or let me know and I can do it. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 15:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Vandal/sockpuppet alert

Sorry to bother you, but can you block Rya0211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? He seems to be a sockpuppet of the now-blocked 72.186.125.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) as he seems to keep connecting PBS with the Nick Jr. show Ni Hao, Kai-Lan without any proof. I've reported him to WP:AIV, but it hasn't been given action so far. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 20:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Rya0211 blocked 3 days (to match the IP's current block) for block evasion. –MuZemike 20:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Why only three days? The user alone seems to be a long-term vandal as well (his edits only involve the said MO) and was previously warned. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 20:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's the person's first block, so let's see what happens. –MuZemike 21:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Another sock report

I am almost sure Kesinenimurthy (talk · contribs) is another sock of Padmalakshmisx (talk · contribs). Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

 Confirmed along with several other socks; one open proxy blocked, and some other IP ranges have now been completely hardblocked. –MuZemike 18:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Pararubbas

Hi there MIKE, VASCO here,

longtime no "see", and unfortunately the reason why i write is the same, the vandal continues, approaching his (at least!!) 60th sock (see "contributions" here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Poper09). It would be interesting to check for sleepers, this account has very little edits so far.

Attentively, from Portugal - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Blocked on behavioral evidence. –MuZemike 18:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

ani

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I just saw this when commenting on another incident, I have nothing to do with it. _WikiMan^One 19:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Maniac Mansion

Thanks for the scans. I'll read through them today and see what I can add. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 January 31#Jeremy_Soul

Hi MuZemike. Is there any sockpuppetry occurring at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 January 31#Jeremy_Soul? Cunard (talk) 02:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

FYI, There is this SPI of the purported socks, which Tnxman307 (talk · contribs) invesitgated. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Reaper Eternal, for the link. I will strike out the socks at the DRV discussion. Cunard (talk) 02:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Kelzorro

Kelzorro (talk · contribs) continues in the personal attacks despite numerous warnings and is mislabelling edits as "vandalism". Can you see if you talking to xim again may produce results in change of behavior or suggest some other steps to improve the editing atmosephere? Thanks. Active Banana (^bananaphone 18:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

According to the banner at the top, Mike is "very busy this week IRL" and you should "contact him by email" if it is an emergency. If this is something any admin can take care of, I recommend going to ANI. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It is not an emergency and I think that Mike has personal knowledge of this editor and the situation. It can probably wait till he has time.Active Banana (^bananaphone 19:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. :) You can email him if it becomes an emergency. Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WPUCU1

Asssuming your watching this but User:Spindlewood Mines and many more are part of this guy ^ The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Mad Dogs (TV series)

Was I wrong to G5 tag this article, given its previous history? E. Fokker (talk) 01:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not seeing a connection with those accounts to Jake Picasso, after cross-checking with several previous socks. –MuZemike 02:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Must be a complete coincidence then. E. Fokker (talk) 02:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PoliticianTexas

Would you take a second look at this case? An IP editor has added some interesting information there. Even if it is not possible to CU PT or any of his previous socks, there may be a connection between SteveoJ and the user the IP has named. LadyofShalott 02:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Or maybe the IP should be encouraged to open a separate case? LadyofShalott 02:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

block log

Hi, I'm horrified to have even the mistaken block on my very clean record. Is there any way to have that block/unblock cleared? Thanks, Rostz (talk) 22:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think there is a way to "delete" log entries from the software. My apologies for the mistaken block, as I thought that message was directed to all editors from your talk page, which made me assume that you made it. Think of it this way: I managed to accidentally block myself one time if that is of any consolation. –MuZemike 22:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

(weak grin) Ok, thanks anyway. Rostz (talk) 22:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

It is possible, but it can only be done in rather extreme situations, per WP:Revision deletion#Log redaction. I'm not even sure there's an easy way to annotate the log to explain that it was a mistaken block, other than the text of the unblock that's there now. —C.Fred (talk) 22:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Is that a proper usage of RevDeletion on a log entry, though? I mean, it isn't often that part or all of a log entry needs to be RevDeleted, let alone for that reason. –MuZemike 22:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:CFRD #6 seems to say you could do housekeeping on those entries... (Never mind, I see it's talking about redaction cleanup.) Rostz (talk) 22:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, another question - given that legal terms were invoked against me (as well as others) and the person who made them expressed an intention to pursue the matter, how would I be informed if I were involved in the future? (I guess I'm a little paranoid when it comes to the US legal system...) Thanks, Rostz (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC).

Hold on that right now; I'm currently speaking to the blocked user about the possibility of a retraction. –MuZemike 22:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

This is what I'm looking at right here (at Wikipedia:Revision deletion#Log redaction):

Log redaction (outside of the limited scope of RD#2 for the move and delete logs) is intended solely for grossly improper content, and is not permitted for ordinary matters; the community needs to be able to review users' block logs and other logs whether or not proper. Due to its potential, use of the RevisionDelete tool to redact block logs (whether the block log entry is justified or not) or to hide unfavorable actions, posts and/or criticisms, in a manner not covered by these criteria or without the required consensus or Arbcom agreement, will usually be treated as abuse of the tool.

Someone might see that as trying to hide an unfavorable action on my part, which the community would see as some sort of impropriety and seriously question it. –MuZemike 22:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

FYI

User:MuZemike/info. Saw this on RCP. I smell sock. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 03:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw it. It's banned user User:Justa Punk (i.e. banned, not vanished as evident with his puerile harassment campaign against me). –MuZemike 03:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Rangeblock Doublecheck

Hey Mike, if you get a chance - could you doublecheck one of your rangeblocks? I have an IP complaining that you've blocked a significant number of wireless addresses, perhaps unnecessarily. Since they call you out by name, I thought I'd drop a note. The block is shown here, the IP complaining is doing so at User talk:64.134.191.39. No particular concern from me, given that I know little about the ins and outs of rangeblocks (and deliberately avoid them like the plague), but I thought you might want to have a look. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Do not endorse that unblock request; it's coming from the same banned user who has been abusing that range for the past several months. This is not the first time, either. –MuZemike 20:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Haven't endorsed or declined, just don't have the chops to parse a rangeblock, nor the tools to peer behind the curtain, as it were. Thanks for the analysis. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 21:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Individual vandals and how worthwhile certain types of action against them are

I thought I'd mention that there's a (very) speculative discussion occurring on User talk:Jimbo Wales about whether there would ever be a practical purpose in some sort of legal action against especially problematic vandals. In particular, this sentence came up; "I don't think that any one vandal is so prolific that their removal would noticeably impact the level of vandalism." Although naming any one individual would obviously be a bad idea per WP:DENY, I thought I'd mention it in case you or any war room page stalkers had an opinion on the extent to which that quoted sentence is true. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Tables

I actually liked the tables. Since you are against tables, I am wondering how you feel about wire hangers. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

North Korea

I'm certain this is the same as one, two, three, four and five. Worth keeping an eye on? SlightSmile 02:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

IP block

Why exactly did you remove the IP block exemption? I was never under a hard block, and several times now have suffered collateral damage from an autoblock placed on one of the many IPs my work computer rotates through. It's quite a headache to fix when it happens, which is why I was granted that user right in the first place. I should have expected some sort of request or notice before the rights were changed anyway. bahamut0013^words_deeds 18:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I checked your range, and I have not seen a single account within the past 3 months which has been blocked, which would have triggered any autoblocks. Moreover, I have seen any sign of any "indef blocked user" which is still evading block on your range. As such, the IP block exemption is no longer necessary. –MuZemike 21:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I've had to use a West Coast proxy lately, but NMCI tends to swap them without announcement. I'd rather play it safe here. bahamut0013^words_deeds 22:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I hate to be pesky, but it's been such a hassle in the past. bahamut0013^words_deeds 21:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Love Tester

Hello! Your submission of Love Tester at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Cmprince (talk) 19:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi MuZemike, thanks for the clarification. I removed my objection. Cmprince (talk) 18:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/88.241.100.134

Hey MuZemike. You mind checking to see if any of the IPs used at Nutmeg are OPs? Elockid ^(Talk) 19:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Marcha Libertadora

Please block this account. He/she is a sock puppet of the blocked account User:Achun1111y. -- ChongDae (talk) 01:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Got it. –MuZemike 01:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Triple Crown jewels

Your majesty, it gives me great pleasure to bestow these Triple crown upon MuZemike for your contributions in the areas of WP:DYK, WP:GA, and WP:FC, particularly in the area of video games. Thank you for all your contributions to the project! – SMasters (talk) 14:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

This user has a Triple Crown.

User:Laptopmaker

Is it correct to say that Laptopmaker (talk · contribs) is a sock of Loosemarkers (talk · contribs), or are they both socks of someone else? (or were they just IP hopping before? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I can't tell if they were socks of somewhere else, so I say right now that one of them is the sockmaster and the other a sock. –MuZemike 02:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Love Tester

Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Murdox/GNAA

If the article is salted, is there any justification for a copy in userspace? Dougweller (talk) 09:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, the last MFD we had on that page said "no". –MuZemike 18:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

So do we need to have an MfD on this copy? Or is there a speedy deletion criterion that would apply (I can't think of one)? LadyofShalott 23:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmm... this is in the deletion log: "2010 August 27 Alison (talk | contribs | block) restored "User:Murdox/GNAA" ‎ (10 revisions restored: It's fine in userspace and isn't the only copy there. If it ever gets enuf WP:RS, we can reconsider but it's no harm here right now.)" So it would seem that an(other) MfD would be the only valid way to deal with this. LadyofShalott 23:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the MfD, I'm dubious. I don't think the Keep arguments, or at least all of them, are good enough or even based on policy and guidelines, but... Dougweller (talk) 09:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Jarlie

Snap! :) - Alison ^❤ 08:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

CharmedBuffy12 (talk · contribs)

Hello. I'm not sure where to go with this, but I figured I'd start with you. You recently blocked CharmedBuffy12 (talk · contribs) as a sock of RoyalPains11 (talk · contribs). Since then, CharmedBuffy continues to be active on Commons, adding copyrighted images and claiming "own work", such as here {and others that have since been deleted) . An IP 118.209.184.32 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) then adds these to the appropriate pages. (These have already been deleted: [21], [22]) It seems suspicious to me that the IP is CharmedBuffy/RoyalPains, but I wasn't sure what to do about it. I was hoping you could help. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 12:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the IPs are clearly him, and I blocked his range (anon only, ACC still enabled) for 2 weeks. You may wish to get those Commons images deleted and possibly request a block for him on Commons due to repeated copyvios. –MuZemike 13:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

"Editing from 118.209.0.0/16 has been disabled by MuZemike for the following reason(s): Block evasion ... set to expire: 13:26, 12 March 2011" . Mike, this range blocks me also and most likely a lot of Internode users. How about adjusting the range ? I have a dynamic IP, currently mine is 118.209.175.41 . I'd never heard of block evasion. Gerixau (talk) 05:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

At this point, I am not going to unblock at this time. CharmedBuffy12 has been causing abuse from all over that range from IPs. As a result, all anonymous editing from that range has been restricted. If people on that range wish to edit, then they need to create an account. –MuZemike 05:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

218.186.0.0/16

Hi MuZemike, we just got an unblock request on the unblock list on this range you previously blocked. (it's not blocked by you atm, but by another admin, who I will also drop a note.) Seeing it has been unblocked and reblocked before, there is probably quite a deal of damage from this range. Also, it's insanely large. I'm looking if I can break it down in a few smaller blocks (currently looking at 218.186.9.0/28, 218.186.9.224/27, 18.186.8.224/27 and 218.186.8.8/29, just based on their number of edits. A few of those seem proxy adresses (9.1 and 9.2 are called cache.maxonline.com.sg, 218.186.8.224/27 are all called proxy.maxonline.com.sg), and seem prime suspects for a rangeblock. I'm hoping I can drastically decrease the collateral here. Do you have some more background on this block, so I might be able to tweak it a bit? Going through all adresses/ranges contribs to see how good/bad they are seems rather cumbersome, if you would be able to shed some light. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Bah, the blocking admin retired. That leaves you. Sorry to shove this on your plate. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to take a closer look at the rangeblocks a little later (as I am a bit busy at the moment and only have a few minutes onilne). We actually get quite a bit of unblock and account creation requests (mostly off-wiki requests) from these IPs, but, as you noted, I was not aware either that the blocking admin retired. –MuZemike 21:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and unblocked that entire range for the time being; there is just too much collateral damage from blocking that range. When the abusive user returns, we will just have to make far smaller rangeblocks so that we will not be affecting so many users. –MuZemike 03:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 February newsletter

So begins round two of the WikiCup! We now have eight pools, each with eight random contestants. This round will continue until the end of April, when the top two of each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers of those remaining, will make it to round three. Congratulations to The Bushranger (submissions) (first, with 487 points) and Hurricanehink (submissions) (second, with 459), who stormed the first round. Casliber (submissions) finished third with 223. Twelve others finished with over 100 points- well done to all of you! The final standings in round one can be seen here. A mere 8 points were required to reach round two; competition will no doubt be much more fierce this round, so be ready for a challenge! A special thanks goes, again, to Jarry1250 (submissions) for dealing with all bot work. This year's bot, as well as running smoothly, is doing some very helpful things that last year's did not. Also, thanks to Stone (submissions) for some helpful behind-the-scenes updating and number crunching.

Some news for those who are interested- March will see a GAN backlog elimination drive, which you are still free to join. Organised by WikiProject Good articles, the drive aims to minimise the GAN backlog and offers prizes to those who help out. Of course, you may well be able to claim WikiCup points for the articles you review as part of the drive. Also ongoing is the Great Backlog Drive, looking to work on clearing all of the backlogs on Wikipedia; again, incentives are offered, and the spirit of friendly competition is alive, while helping the encyclopedia is the ultimate aim. Though unrelated to the WikiCup, these may well be of interest to some of you.

Just a reminder of the rules; if you have done significant work on content this year and it is promoted in this round, you may claim for it. Also, anything that was promoted after the end of round one but before the beginning of round two may be claimed for in round two. Details of the rules can be found on this page. For those interested in statistics, a running total of claims can be seen here, and a very interesting table of that information (along with the highest scorers in each category) can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, 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 23:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

GAR: Andrei Kirilenko (politician)

Thanks for reviewing my article, I've fixed the remaining issues, is the article ready to pass now? --TIAYN (talk) 21:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

To reverse AfD of Amanda Knox

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amanda Knox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

02-March-11: Before taking this issue to WP:DRV, I am contacting you, as the prior AfD admin. A bio page is needed, now, as a notable murder suspect being re-tried on appeal, and she is also in title of new film "Amanda Knox: Murder on Trial in Italy". A BLP ruling is needed to re-allow the AfD-deleted page. Some prior bio articles were redirected about Amanda Knox (pageviews in Top 100 articles now): she is the 20-year-old (now 23) American exchange student held in Perugia, Italy, on multiple charges. The redirect was always to "Murder of Meredith Kercher" where the Knox bio was trimmed to avoid too much text, per WP:UNDUE. Opponents claim a bio page would be empty (trivial), compared to the murder-trials page; however, I feel the bio-page would balance NPOV coverage, as describing a hard-working, studious girl, with no criminal background, as a major element of her unusual notability. The bio should include the views as a guitar-playing, honors student ("straight-A") from a Jesuit prep school, who works 3 jobs to become a foreign exchange student in Italy, then after 5 weeks, meets a new boyfriend at a classical music concert, calls housemate Meredith about their trendy Halloween costumes, then is accused of plot to kill housemate 2 days later, with her new boyfriend of 7 days. I can understand some people would think a hard-working, "huggy bookworm" would be a boring bio page, but that seems to be a major part of the controversy in her notability: an honors student works 3 jobs to move to Italy and is accused of a murder plot with a computer-engineering student she knew for 7 days. Her ordinary life, as raised in a normal family, with 2 sisters, and many college friends, as a rock-climbing soccer player, with guitar, is just too much WP:UNDUE text in other articles about her; hence, a bio page is the only method to ensure NPOV coverage, with space to allow numerous sources. Wikipedia should not be seen as a place where only gun-toting psychos, who police kept releasing, get bio pages. We need to overturn the prior AfD's. Thank you for considering this. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the current commentary on the BLP noticeboard, I am not convinced that overturning my earlier AFD close, which I still feel I made the right decision at the time, is in the best interests in all those involved; moreover, given the current developments which you mentioned above, you may have something to argue on with that, but everything else seems to amount to disagreeing with the AFD close while re-arguing the same points made in the original deletion discussion. –MuZemike 17:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Picture Question

Hey Mike, I was wondering if this image, from Army.mil, would be useable under our copyright rules. The picture is of a very young Frank Buckles, the last living US World War I veteran who, sadly, passed away Sunday Morning at the age of 110. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Same question on this photo. It is from the Hagerstown Herald-Mail and is discribed as a "file photo", but doesn't list any copyright. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

If you can verify that both images are from the U.S. Government, then you can claim {{PD-USGov}}. –MuZemike 02:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The first image, I can, see here. The second, is from a local newspaper (I am pretty close to where he lived), but doesn't list a copyright. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Just lighting this up again. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The one you just linked should be fine as PD-USGov. The second one should be owned by somebody; perhaps researching the newspaper company would help there. –MuZemike 21:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Will use PD-USGov on the first (thanks) and on the second, I had to call Chicago as it is a Tribune Media Services photo and am waiting on a call back to see if it is full copyrighted or it is non-commerical reuse. Will let you know on that. Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Report

I'm pretty sure Bonvishhp (talk · contribs) is a new sock puppet of Shrik88music (talk · contribs), who was recently blocked by you. You may want to make a CU. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

 Confirmed as Shrik88music, along with Entertrip1 (talk · contribs). Not blocking any ranges yet as there are some good faith account creation there. –MuZemike 21:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Spies Reminiscent of Us GAN

I've addressed your concerns. Gage (talk) 02:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

IP block exemption

Hello MuZemike, I live in China and sometimes have to use proxies to edit. It had taken Wikipedia bureaucrats more than a year to find some kind of solution for users in China. That solution had been working for me from May 2008 until yesterday, when you stripped me of the IP block exemption.

Why did you do that? I was blocked for a while and complained, and you’ve restored the exemption, but I would like to understand what you meant by writing that I was “no longer under a hardblock” and that the “IP block exemption [was] no longer necessary”. Please explain. I hope this won’t happen again and I would like to know how to avoid such problems in the future. --Babelfisch (talk) 02:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

That was an oversight on my part. I was not aware of your specific situation and, as a result, I have given back your IP block exemption status. When I checked your underlying IP addresses as part of a review of all users who currently have IPBE status, I originally did not see any problems as far as open proxies, hardblocks, or autoblocks are concerned; I was not aware that you were editing through the Great Firewall of China, which I now know. Please accept my apologies for any inconvenience that I may have caused. –MuZemike 06:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Online Ambassador Program

Please take a look at this project page and see if you can be a mentor to one of the many Areas of Study. If you can, please put your name in the "Online Mentor" area of the Area of Study of your choice and then contact the students you will be working with. As the Coordinating Online Ambassador for this project, please let me know if I can be of assistance. Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Another suspected latham sock

Latham10 - see edit 13 Feb [23] - not blocked as yet as far as I can see Zanoni (talk) 22:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry - context [24] Zanoni (talk) 22:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Blocked, along with 20019JULPYGYL (talk · contribs). Created article has not been deleted so far, as the IP editing that article doesn't look like it's related. –MuZemike 22:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I suspect L00076242 may be another Latham sock - created Raheem Sterling article in Feb 2010 whi is a Liverpool youth player who will need to be either sent to PROD or AFD as its had a lot of subsequent edits Zanoni (talk) 07:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't be able to tell with CU, as the account is long  Stale. However, if there is a copyvio concern with the article, I would bank on it being him. –MuZemike 07:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

User:141.117.94.186 wants you to edit his ass for some obscure reason.

Kinda creepy, really, but who am I to judge? HalfShadow 01:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It's indefinitely blocked user KBlott (talk · contribs). R-B-I. –MuZemike 01:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Regardless, just keep away from his ass. Seriously; that's sick. HalfShadow 01:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I would appreciate your input (Cleanup templates discussion)

I would appreciate your input on a matter I have raised at the Village Pumps concerning the size of cleanup templates (found here). As you will read, the idea has been on my mind for a long time, but I was drawn to finally posting about it after viewing your cleanup proposal templates, hence why I now am here. (For the record, I am not asking specifically for your support in the matter, merely your honest opinion and view. If the two happen to coincide, all the better.) — CobraWiki ^{( jabber | stuff )} 07:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Video games Triple Crown

Your Majesty, MuZemike, I am pleased to award this special edition triple crown to WikiProject Video games and its hardworking volunteers. – SMasters (talk) 09:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for all your hard work. May you wear the crowns well, and may the gamepad crown motivate you to press on with more outstanding articles. – SMasters (talk) 09:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Hotel Tycoon Resort- your prod

Hello MuZemike, I have proposed the corresponding article in the german edition of Wikipedia for deletion a few days ago. My rationale there is "relevance of subject either non-exisitant or not proven by article content" (crude ad-hoc translation, but I think you get the point ;-) Upon closer inspection of the english article, I have discovered, that hte article author, who is also the author of the german article, removed you proposal for deletion on quaestionanle grounds. I also see a possible conflict of intrerests on the side of the autjhor in this case. Since I am not accustomed to deletion policies in en.winkipedia, I would kindly ask you to file a new proposal for deletion. I will be happy to second it. Cheers -- Make (talk) 12:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:The Blunder Years/GA1

Hi MuZemike! I've edited the article per your instructions and I encourage you to take a look and tell me what you think. Regards! Queenieacoustic (talk) 20:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:Null

I replied on my talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 05:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Mediterranean Sea

Thanks for semi-ing the page. On another note, why would anyone be so persistent in their vandalism of (of all thing) the mediterranean sea. I'll never understand what could someone find so objectionable about a sea! Anyway, thanks. Yazan (talk) 14:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Tsubasa: Reservoir Chronicle/GA1‎

Thanks for the reviewing. I'll try to address any issue within the review. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 03:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Second (accidential) AfD

Note - I created a second AfD for the same article [25] - can you delete this one while the first one continues [26] - Thank you (I blanked the content of the second one)Zanoni (talk) 10:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Help

Hey MuZamike, I turn to you because you are familiar with the subject. Remember this? Well, this user is back once again with his hysteric editing on three pages mainly: Filmfare Awards, National Film Award for Best Actor, and National Film Award for Best Actress. He keeps doing practically the same editing he used to do (despite the fact that he is a sock, I did cite the articles). He keeps edit warring with his trademark way of writing messages in edit summaries, reverting everything, being very rude, and just doing the same edits. All three of these pages were semi-protected because of him in the past, he's been blocked numerous times with all his socks. What do you suggest? Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

sockpuppets

Why do you believe that this is evidence that Wiki brah and Editor XXV are/were working together? I'm pretty sure that post was just Wiki brah trolling. XXV was an active member of TFWiki.net that apparently tried to reform and come back here but got discovered and banned because they had another account do some trolling. Wiki brah has pretty much been trolling with no "good hand" accounts a far as I can tell and they don't really seem connected. See how User:Divebomb (XXV's good hand sock) got trolled by Wiki brah socks, for instance... NotARealWord (talk) 18:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

It's due to specific CheckUser evidence which I am not inclined to go into any detail. –MuZemike 21:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that last response was to how I am differentiating the two from each other. As far as that comment above which you referenced is concerned, it's fairly self-explanatory. You got one sock, after another, after another, after another. I don't see how one would not conclude that some coordinated effort is going on. –MuZemike 21:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I actually looked at their behaviour. I don't remember any XXV socks trolling in the same manner as Wiki brah. Plus, I've talked to XXV off-site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotARealWord (talk • contribs) 07:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

You're right that they do not troll in the same manner or behavior, but they are still disrupting on the exact same set of articles nonetheless. –MuZemike 07:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Still, no proof they are directly working together. Claritas was apparently attempting a "social experiment" through good-hand bad hand socking, and Access Denied seems to have just disrupted the Transformers Project randomly at one point. Also, there's how XXV himself got trolled by Wiki brah. It looks more like they decided to disrupt the same project because they thought it was an easy target. NotARealWord (talk) 07:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The fact remains that it is a coordinated attack on all such pages. I am well aware that they are separate people, but we need to be treating this like it is a coordinated effort. Sometimes, very little coordination is needed to launch an attack; Anonymous has proven this time and time again.

You are right; those pages are easy targets for them; that is the reason I think some sort of coordinated attack has been going on for the past 6 months. I ask you to re-read that diff and see what the intent is, because I think there is a degree of accuracy behind that they are saying. –MuZemike 07:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Thing is, I don't see any proof that these people even communicate with each other at all outside of this website. Sure, they have some things in common, but, it doesn't look at all like a conspiracy. NotARealWord (talk) 07:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

GA Backlog

During this current Backlog drive for GA nominations I have noticed a number of things.

• Many, if not most reviews are ending in a "Pass".
• Fail is NOT as good a term to use as "Not Listed". Geometry guy suggested that and I like it.
• Even if I attempt to assist an editor and give pinpoint reasoning, show the exact MoS guideline and state out right what is wrong and even provide further reference material....I still get an argument with some.
• It seems less less likely that a new member of just over two months will be questioned for 23 pass reviews in just over a week than I as a member of several years would get for failing 5 articles in the same amount of time.
• "Overly Harsh" is less acceptable than overly kind in the backlog process.
• There may be a misunderstanding or misperception on my part as to what the main focus of the backlog drive and/or review for GA is about.

I see the review as both, a way to improve the article and decide if it meets criteria for GA listing. As GA is not the top standard at Wikipedia I also feel it helps to prepare both the article and editors towards even further improvements towards Feature Article status.

Of the 5 failed articles 2 editors have questioned the fails. One going to GAR and another going onto that GAR in bad faith to complain about the number of failed reviews I have made and shop for sympathy of editors on that page to his cause.

Two other editors have been good enough to admit that the articles still need work and thank me for the added comments and took them seriously. The last "Fail" review was for an article by a member who just had an "indefinite ban" for copyright infringement lifted (with a mentor) and has not been cooperative on issues over MoS. On the last two reviews, I made sure to make very specific comments, list what I felt should be done and link to the relevant guideline. While some work has been done to address problems I simply don't see a review as being a place to debate policy and guidelines. Yes, if I make a mistake it should be pointed out and I will line out the statement, apologise and move forward. However when the review becomes a debate over what is or is not a part of GA criteria and the editor does not take into consideration such things as the Manual of Style guidelines for the article or images, etc. I see no further reason to continue the review. As a reviewer, I do this for Wikipedia, the article and the sake of furthering both knowledge and accurate information not for the "Barnstar" or the editors, many of which I see huge amounts of bias and COI. These things may not be troublesome for an article of a C rating but...I can't pass them to GA.

I refuse to backdown, as I see nothing I have done as being wrong or against the spirit or policy/guidelines of Wikipedia. However, my continued participation with the backlog is no longer fun. I also feel it could quickly become a distraction to the community and already see my username being bashed about by one and have been accused of "Quick Failing" for the sake of "listing". So I will step back from further backlog reviews this month. It looks to be accomplishing the needed work and that is the most important issue anyway. Thank You!

Mark--Amadscientist (talk) 06:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear about your bad experiences so far with the reviews. For me, lately, I've actually been failing more GA nominations than passing (but the fails were a while ago FWIW), but that is due to the reviews I have come across. As far as I am concerned, your fails look valid, and I agree with nearly all of them.

I think we both see GA nominations in the same manner – both as ways to provide a way forward for higher-quality articles as well as a way to provide some sort of improvement as a result of outside scrutiny. That being said, a GA nomination is not a glorified peer review (that is what WP:PR is for); it is expected that a nominated article be of a certain level of quality before nominating.

My advice, when failing a GA nomination, is that the best thing you can do is provide ways forward for improvement (unless it is a quick-fail). Sometimes, though, it may be better to place a GA nomination on hold; normally, the standard time is 1 week for improvements, which is not terribly long.

Hopefully that helps out a little bit. I hope that someday you can come back and do a couple more when you are up to it. From looking at a couple of your reviews, you seem to point out a few issues that the rest of us tend to miss. –MuZemike 07:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I will return again eventualy, but right now I'm going to return to my first articles and bring them up to standard. Taking care of my own house so to speak. I appreciate the advice and think I need to have more patience when dealing with the work of others, because I do know how much work the research, and typing can be. I have used the GA noms in the past to get input and realise some do it because they really see their articles as good enough. It's not always a pleasant thing to have someone point out something you disagree with completely. I will say this, as with all my time on Wikipedia, I learned a great deal and it has only made me a better editor from the experiance!--Amadscientist (talk) 10:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)