User talk:MuZemike/Archive 4

User talk:Gigogag

Could you please fix the indef block template on User talk:Gigogag. I'd fix it, but it will say that I blocked him. Thanks, Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's going to matter much. He's indefinitely blocked and userpage tagged. –MuZemike 22:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Alrighty. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for my somewhat annoying behavior, but how is User:Dock26 Pwnage not blocked indef yet as a sock of Gigogag? Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

 Confirmed by CU and blocked by User:J.delanoy. –MuZemike 22:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello! Re:NC1701

Hello! I am an experienced Wikipedia editor working on articles relating to warfare, primarily modern warfare, WWII and post-WWII. This appeal is not about me. Due to my skillful edits in the 2008 South Ossetia War article I have earned three Barnstars. Alas when you make good edits, you aren't always congratulated by the other side. In the title debates, over a year ago, I received a threat: As a personal note, this ends the title discussion for me and I hope not to spend any further time on this. I will also not forget HistoricWarrior007's actions during the vote. --Xeeron (talk) 21:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Source: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_24#Results.

I didn't want to bring it up, but unfortunately it affected two new Wikipedians. NC1701 and BillyMays. Xeeron thought they were my sockpuppets, because they came onto the 2008 South Ossetia War talkpage and made arguments against the title change. In his evidence presented, Xeeron erred in his claim: "Both demonstrated a deep knowledge of the previous discussion (which is mainly buried in the lengthy archives) and cited wikipedia rules." Source: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nc1701#Evidence_submitted_by_Xeeron. This was rebutted by NC1701: "My arguments came from archives. My arguments included massive copy paste. Arguments of Billy Mays came from the tip of the article: common sense, google search, first paragraph, article map, summary of first section on talkpage." Source: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Nc1701

Alas, NC1701 was banned as per this case: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nc1701

Is there any way to reopen the case, as I feel bad that two new Wikipedians received the short end of the stick and I wasn't able to prevent it earlier? I think that both NC1701 and BillyMays would agree to a checkuser, to show that they are different users. I know that you are really busy, but it would be great if we could get the case reopened, and I'll do everything I can to help these new Wikipedians feel welcome! Or if you could just request a simple checkuser, and unban them if the checkuser comes back negative. Thank you! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

青鬼よし

My account is blocked. Please explain the reason that blocked my account. I am an editor of Japanese Wikipedia. Please reply to my talk page. [1] (I was connected from the Internet cafe. However, I hope to continue talking in my talk page ) Thank you. --219.101.251.98 (talk) 09:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I blocked this account as a sock puppet of User:Azukimonaka. What part of "you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first" do you not understand? –MuZemike 17:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not sock puppet of Azukimonaka. Why am I sock puppet?

My IP address is blocked by MuZemike. I cannot apply for unblock. Please come to my TalkPage in Japanese Wikipedia.[2] And, keep explaining. --青鬼よし 2010年1月13日 (水) 10:43 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.107.209.80 (talk)

Block follow up

Hi, I see that you blocked this ip address today. [ http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/90.11.234.233]

The editor originally mistakenly contacted the oversight email list on January 4th about factual errors in several articles. Since it did not seem to be an oversight issue, unfortunately no one replied.

The editor contacted us again today about the same content concerns. I was in the process of writing the user an email referring to other venues to resolve his editing disputes when he wrote for the third time noting that he was block.

I wanted to note that the lack of response to his original email might have further fueled his frustration on site today. I've now written to him and referred him to reading material on site about how to resolve problems with article content. And suggested that he make unblock requests on the talk page. I wanted to give you this additional history in case the user mentions on site about contacting an email list. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 22:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I was unaware of any off-wiki communication going on. With that said, he was edit-warring with a POV, which was the rationale for my block. –MuZemike 22:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the block was understandable. Looking into this more, I now see that the user has a blocked account. (At least I'm pretty sure that it is him.)

• [3]. :-(

He has strong opinions on the topic and does not understand policy. I'll try to talk to him by email and see if I can get him to understand policy enough to unblock the original account. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 22:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I think so, too. You don't even need to run a check and see for that. –MuZemike 22:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Sock follow up

Thank you for the prompt attention to this matter [[4]]. Regarding your indef block of the socks of banned user Barryispuzzled, I didn't understand the reference to a "one-month block for the sockmaster". Since the Sockmaster was a new sock for Barryispuzzled, already an indefinitely banned user, why would his latest sockmaster only receive a one month block? Shouldn't all the new socks (including the new sockmaster) be indef banned? Kind of scratching my head. Maybe this wasn't clear from the case report and its my fault? Anyhow, can you look into that? Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 01:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see it because you didn't file the case under "Barryispuzzled" (kind of a mistake on both our parts). I just indefinitely blocked WellStanley after briefly looking at Barry's contribs and comparing. –MuZemike 01:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Never mind - you just did it! Sorry about my mistake - it was the first time I ever created an SPI case. Best wishes. Smatprt (talk) 01:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

SPI investigation

Thank you for moving the SPI investigation and forming it correctly. I started the SPI under the IP name, then as I was editing it, discovered the potential puppetmaster, hence it ending up rather convoluted and malformed. Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 18:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

OK. No problems. –MuZemike 18:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Vanity

Hi MuZemike. I notice you've recreated some userpages that I deleted yesterday, like User:Dr. Starscream. In my experience any vandal who creates sockpuppets principally to add sockpuppet tags to their userpages should have those pages deleted with fire. It's a proven helpful technique to reduce disruption, and I'd like to politely request that in the future it is given due consideration. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

If you want to delete them again, go ahead. I wasn't aware of that particular case. –MuZemike 21:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI subpages

Whenever you split off long WP:ANI subpages, please add them to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archives/Subpages. I have done that for Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Badagnani. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 20:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for letting me know. The same thing will need to be done with Wiki Greek Basketball, as well. –MuZemike 21:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I added the Wiki Greek Basketball page two days ago. Cunard (talk) 23:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

LBHS Cheerleader

Hey MuZemike, I need some help with this. A different cheerleader there who seems harmless wants to know if she can be a good editor on Wikipedia, and is sorry for what the other cheerleaders did today. I'm not really sure how to handle it, so I'm asking you to help. User:Sm00re15 and User:Sierra Marinola are definitely not the same person, because both linked to their respective social networking profiles. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

It is bloody obvious that either 1) this is all the same person, or 2) if they are different people, then somehow the entire cheerleading team from Lemon Bay High School is trying to engage in harassment/disruption. I still think this is the same person per her apparent admission [5] and [6]. She also acknowledges the apparent harassment of PCHS-NJROTC [7] about 5-6 minutes ago. I don't support any unblocking of any kind from these accounts for those reasons. –MuZemike 00:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sennen goroshi

Hi, MuZemike. I am not accustomed to Sockpuppet investigation procedure, so I posted here instead of the official site. What I cannot understand is Sennen goroshi and 119ip have no overlapped period of editing. See below.

• 119.173.81.176　8 June 2009　13 January 2010　
• Sennen goroshi 28 July 2007　27 April 2009　

And this does not seem to be the case of block evasion. Even so, can sockpuppet accusation be established? Thanks in advance ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 03:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

We realize that. However, what other reason is there is quit using your registered account and go IP-hopping, especially with some significant blocking history on said IPs besides for deceptive purposes? That's why I (as well as Nathan) felt that he violated the spirit (perhaps not necessarily the letter) of WP:SOCK. –MuZemike 03:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I stop by to thank MuZemike's diligent works for the case of Sennen goroshi (talk · contribs) and his socks, but well I see that Phoenix7777 (talk · contribs) appears here after checking on my contribution as usual. You have been one of my "fan" by blatantly following my edits and colluding several banned users like Azukimonaka (talk · contribs · block log) for POV pushing, and AvengerX (talk · contribs) who has been indef.blocked over multi Wikipedia projects for sockpuppetry and harassment. Phoenix7777, you omits this as well.

119.173.81.176 (talk · contribs) 2009-06-08 to 2010-01-13

61.23.81.111 (talk · contribs), 2009-05-31 to 2009-06-03

Sennen goroshi (talk · contribs) 2007-07-28 to 2009-04-27

203.165.124.61 (talk · contribs) 2005-12-29 to 2008-08-02 (overlapped with typical insulting habit to people )[8][9]

This IPs are only things I can trace so far (there would be more) because I don't edit car-related or other BLP articles that he edits. Based on the similar writing style and interests and static IP, I believe the earliest of 203.165.124.61 are made by Sennen goroshi. As said, the block length is "very generous" given that his last block length as Sennen goroshi is "one-week" twice in a row and his 4 blocks with the 119.173.81.176 warrants much more than that.

Regardless, MuzeMike, thanks again for your hard works. --Caspian blue 05:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Removal of CSD-tag on Guvano

Hi there. A group of new editors and a IP editor seem to be bend on using wikipedia as a promotional platform to advertise their company. They have twice removed the CSD-tag which was placed on that article. To avoid edit warring, your admin intervention is required. Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 09:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Issue with page on "Brooke Weston"

Hi, could you please explain to me why you reverted my edits on Brooke Weston? I've sourced my information from reliable places and it follows the NPOV guidelines, so I don't understand why you've reverted it. Paul24114 (talk) 10:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about. I didn't touch that page at all. –MuZemike 17:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Just Dance (video game)

On January 17, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Just Dance (video game), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

IP block evasion

Since I'm not sure where to go with this, I thought I'd see if you could suggest a course of action. I'm bothering you because you were involved in this sockpuppetry investigation. Pretty sure that this IP is the same user, once again evading his block. Same area (Chicago), same articles edited. Where should I bring this? AN/I? Any help would be appreciated. TheJazzDalek (talk) 23:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• No suggestions? Thanks just the same. TheJazzDalek (talk) 13:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I just replied on the ANI page. At this point, not much can be done. I suspect that this is another dynamic IP, so I don't think blocking will accomplish much. Sorry that I didn't get back to you earlier. –MuZemike 16:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Tfoxworth is banned but back, please help

Would you please take a look another look at the pattern of edits of long-banned User talk:Tfoxworth back to 2006, and permanently ban User:66.162.39.129 and User:98.165.71.29 if, as I and dwc lr argued here, are one and the same (or that he's using a meatpuppet in Denver))? He's back, stalking my edits and trying to induce other editors to restore his vandalisms thru comments which omit the fact that he's a banned user. Thanks. FactStraight (talk) 22:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Normally, per WP:BLOCK, we don't indefinitely block IPs. However, I have blocked both IPs for 3 months each. –MuZemike 22:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:NODRAMA/2

Just a quick reminder that the Second Great Wikipedia Dramaout has begun. Please log any work you do at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/2nd/Log. Good luck! --Jayron32 01:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Goodbye

As it has become painfully obvious, my contributions are no longer welcome or needed here. In light of this situation, I am leaving this screwed up bureaucracy for the conceivable future. Good luck, my friend and keep fighting the good fight. ILLEGITIMUS NON CARBORUNDUM WuhWuzDat 02:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Barry is Back with 3 more puppets

Well, BarryisPuzzled has once again lived up to his promise that nothing will stop him. Here is the recent report I just completed: [[10]]. What on earth can be done? Smatprt (talk) 07:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Barryispuzzled (everything is lowercase), and I went ahead and requested that CU look into it. –MuZemike 14:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal

After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

• gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and

• ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 and Dermatology-related content

I noticed that you are participating in the 2010 WikiCup. I have been working on the Bolognia push which is a project to make sure Wikipedia has an article (or redirect) on every know cutaneous condition. With that being said, there are still many cutaneous condition stubs to be made, and Bolognia could be a source for a lot of DYK articles, etc. Therefore, I was thinking maybe we could help one another... a competative WikiCup that also serves to improve dermatologic content on Wikipedia. I could e-mail you the Bolognia login information if you have any interest? ---kilbad (talk) 05:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Email ping

Essentially asking how bad I fucked things. OnWiki or email fine. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Random SPI clerk

Hi, sorry, not sure if I formatted the report correctly on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikiuser999120 or added it to WP:SPI right... do you think you could take a quick look? Thanks! ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 12:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

So far it looks OK. Let's wait until what CU comes back with before figuring out who the sockmaster is, as per the last couple related checks came back with some big sockfarms as well. –MuZemike 16:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Please delete my account

REgariding your comment, is it possible for you to delete this account? I use this account in other projects and I do not want to use it in En.wiki. Unfortunately, sometimes I have followed cross-wiki links and accidentally got signed in. Could you do something for me? I do not want to automatically get logged in En.wiki --Behzad.Modares (talk) 04:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's impossible to delete accounts. Just stop using that account and use the other one. –MuZemike 04:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Drsjpdc SPI move

Is there any reason that the SPI was removed even though it seemed stale? I was thinking that there was a consensus to have an checkuser performed. Thanks. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

It's still there. –MuZemike 05:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I was just wondering why it was moved out of the Checkuser section. It's back now, so no harm there. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Have a shiny!

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		You're always beating me to those page replacements! Keep up the huggling and have this barnstar. :-) Schfifty3 18:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/S33k4ndd3str0y/Archive

Our fun loving IP is back.....the Range is the same and immediately returned to vandalizing at KBPI. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The actually expanded, but as far as I can tell, the only edits from the range I can see for the last 2 weeks have only been vandalism. 69.2.128.0/19 blocked 2 weeks. –MuZemike 03:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

My first RFCU

That's the first one that I have done, and I'm sure I made some mistakes. Feel free to fix any lol.

Thanks, Dusti^SPEAK!! 02:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Gigogag is back

User:CabbageBrain. I have re-opened the investigation. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

IP autoblock question

Hi, just a question about IP 24.171.1.195 which was supposed to have been autoblocked as an IP sock of User:Xgmx after the most recent sockpuppet investigation a week or so ago. The IP was never blocked, though, and has been making a bunch of typical xgmx edits over the last couple of days. Not sure what the procedure is. Another SPI, or can it just be blocked because it's already been found to be a sock? --bonadea contributions talk 12:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, I'm sure User:CafeDelKevin is him again. New SPI coming up. --bonadea contributions talk 15:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Reblock needed

Hey. If you have a minute, 66.233.23.3 (the Excuseme99 sock) needs another reblock. Nymf _talk/contr. 14:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

66.233.16.0/21 blocked 1 month. –MuZemike 22:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

L2 heading

Hey MuZmike- I guess I couldn't read the Big Board, or there might be something up with the SPI request page. I didn't try to format the heading differently on that request, just followed instructions and put the username in the section box provided. My first time there--did I miss something? Regards, Eric ^talk 16:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. It's a common mistake made by many. If there was something in the software that would allow the omission of that heading-box, then we'd use it. Otherwise, it's formatted fine. –MuZemike 16:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi again MuZmike- May I ask you some advice? I just caught something I missed on the SPI I submitted: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Marc#Evidence_submitted_by_Eric. Any advice on how to proceed? I don't want to impede investigation of the other three usernames, but User:Marc may not be involved after all. Eric ^talk 18:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

First off, SPI cases aren't done in a vacuum - otherwise we wouldn't have a transparent system of reporting and vetting sock puppetry.

Anyways, just post on the case any other evidence and/or what you think is going on. If there is another sockmaster involved, an SPI clerk will move the case appropriately and remedy and blocks that may have been erroneously issued. Hope that helps, –MuZemike 21:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Got it--thanks. Eric ^talk 02:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for your help with that SPI. One hundred dollars each in rubles and gold, plus nine packs of chewin' gum to ye. Eric ^talk 23:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Keep it. You probably need it more than me :) –MuZemike 05:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Alinovic

Thanks for taking care of this SPI. But I'm not sure how this constitutes "admitting to socking"? Are you sure that's the right diff? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, allegations. In any case, the behavioral evidence was quite clear. –MuZemike 20:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jack Merridew

Hi. It was pretty funny, though. Could I have it parked at:

• User:Jack Merridew/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jack Merridew?

—Sincerely, Street-Legal Sockpuppet Jack Merridew 21:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, restored and moved to the page you requested. –MuZemike 05:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I've tagged it as {{humour}}. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Tfoxworth is banned but back, please help

This time Tfoxworth is editing as 67.192.133.1, but he's making the same edits to the same articles as usual. Please help & thanks in advance. FactStraight (talk) 03:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

 IP blocked –MuZemike 03:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Tfoxworth's newest IP is User:166.164.182.28 and as User:96.14.12.193, continuing his usual vandalism. Please help. FactStraight (talk) 05:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Banned user Tfoxworth's sockpuppet is now threatening me on my talk page, saying "Every day every edit you make will be reversed. You are a vandal. You remove cited work from articles. There are too many of us for you to stop us. Be told!" Please intervene. FactStraight (talk) 10:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Tfoxworth now vandalizing the same articles as usual as User:72.215.62.66. Please help. FactStraight (talk) 06:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Argh! This user is always seem to be attacking when I'm away. BTW, I'm actively monitoring this edit filter to see when such stalking-like reversions are going on. –MuZemike 08:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

User:BobYelena

Hi there MuZemike :) I believe this user maybe a sockpuppet, as he's straight in with potential edit warring from scratch on a previous contentious subject. Vexorg (talk) 15:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi there plaese see http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Criticism_of_YouTube#ADL_claim_and_sources and http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Criticism_of_YouTube#Censorship_claim_using_Indymedia User:BobYelena is certainly a sockpuppet of User:BlueSal who was a sockpuppet of User:Nibbo_2 Vexorg (talk) 14:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Back again

I'm sure this is Gigogag again, but I am waiting for him to edit more in order to get more evidence. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, it's definitely him. See the investigation for my evidence. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Could you block User:Gigogag from editing his talk page. He keeps editing his talk page to post "last words" before he leaves Wikipedia forever--which I don't buy. I removed the retired template he put on his page, too. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

He is also "retiring" all of his sock puppets, all with "last words." He has also said that User:Clongkobong is not one of his sockpuppets. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

FrenchNerd487 blocked, Gigogag's talk page access revoked, and PACE-Brantley Hall School semi-protected again. –MuZemike 02:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ekram Alam

We have a meat or sock problem here. Is this something we should open a SPI for? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. Looks more wiki meatpuppetry as a result of clear off-wiki canvassing. (Looking at the WHOIS and Geolocation data of the IPs, they're all over the greater London area.) It's not necessarily blockable, but the AFD's closing admin has the prerogative to disregard or give less weight to the canvassees. If worse gets to worse, the AFD can also be semi-protected. –MuZemike 04:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

User:FrenchNerd487

You might as well revoke his talk page privileges since all he is doing is attacking you. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Already revoked by another admin. Thanks, –MuZemike 04:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Gigogag

I have reduced Gigogag (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) block to one year as he has promised to avoid sockpuppeting in the future. Fred Talk 23:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

That's fine with me. Thanks for letting me know. –MuZemike 04:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

User_talk:Alison#Encyclopedist/Ulises Heureaux

Hiyya. just wanted to point you to this discussion in case you wanted to comment, seeing as you got a mention - Alison ^❤ 06:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Paulotanner

After being confirmed as a sock, he was blocked only for a week- not indefinitely. Wondering why? I request his block period be extended. Thank you very much. Scieberking (talk) 10:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Email = Spam?

I may have triggered your spamfilter again. I replied to you yesterday, in case it didn't go through.   Will Beback  talk  00:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It's cool

Thanks for unblocking me! It's fine since I was a banned editor and technically should not be allowed on here again. Either way I probably won't have time to edit much (and have forgotten how to). But I would like to say that looking at your talk page at a glimpse suggests you are too trigger happy with blocks...that's why I never was a fan of adminship, but it's whatever...Thanks again. Ulises Heureaux (talk) 06:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Tfoxworth's newest incarnation

He is now vandalizing as User:166.164.136.211. Please block. Again, I ask, is there no remedy for his openly declared intent to use different IPs to re-vandalize pages daily whenever they are reverted, and to stalk me to revert any un-related edits I make to other articles? His obvious intent is to be so relentless that we give in and allow his vandalisms to remain in articles. Lack of consequence encourages him. FactStraight (talk) 19:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

He's now 96.14.1.247, and is reverting your edits indiscriminantly as well as mine. FactStraight (talk) 06:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

And as 96.14.22.126. FactStraight (talk) 06:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

And as User:166.164.137.17 FactStraight (talk) 06:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't know what else to do, then. I've pretty much tried everything in my power to try to stop this vandal (even via an edit filter, which sometimes works but sometimes doesn't). –MuZemike 17:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Hold on. I just blocked two IP ranges for 1 month apiece due to the IP-hopping. –MuZemike 18:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your ongoing and, until recently, lonely efforts. Unfortunately, he'll read this & be encouraged to persist (if the block on 2 IP ranges doesn't work) or return (because they're temporary, even if they do work). What seems to have helped most is the welcome uptake of the matter by admins Evil saltine and The Thing That Should Not Be as well as by Surtsicna: When he realizes that not only will multiple admins block his IPs but will also immediately reverse his edits, he desists, at least temporarily. So I'd suggest a different tactic: I'd ask that you, they and any others who've noted Tfoxworth's persistent vandalism despite being permanently banned (stemming from a series of 2006 nasty edit wars he had with Charles who hasn't edited WP since 2008), add to your watchlists for the next 3 or 4 months some of the articles he most vandalizes and which no other single Wikipedian seems to edit (except to revert his edits). They're low traffic, so there's no apparent need for article protection: Line of succession to the Russian throne, Maria Vladimirovna, Grand Duchess of Russia, Maximilian von Götzen-Itúrbide and Nugzar Bagration-Gruzinsky. When that pattern is seen, or partially seen in combination with indiscriminate reversions of my or User:DWC LR's un-related edits (because we're the ones who recognize his pattern, regardless of IP, and revert his disallowed edits), it's a safe bet it's Tfoxworth flaunting his immunity to WP's conventions. Please help. I'll ask the others referred to herein to help via notes on their talkpages directing them here. Thanks. FactStraight (talk) 03:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 January newsletter

We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. We've had some shakeups regarding late entries, flag changes and early dropouts, but the competition is now established- there will be no more flag changes or new competitors. Congratulations to Sasata (submissions), our current leader, who, at the time of writing, has more listed points than Hunter Kahn (submissions) and TonyTheTiger (submissions) (second and third place respectively) combined. A special well done also goes to Fetchcomms (submissions)- his artcle Jewel Box (St. Louis, Missouri) was the first content to score points in the competition.

Around half of competitors are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. 64 of the 149 current competitors will advance to round 2- if you currently have no points, do not worry, as over half of the current top 64 have under 50 points. Everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places in round 2! 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, by email or on IRC. Good luck! J Milburn, Garden, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

This Interesting...

This is an interesting allegation (sockpuppetry). Is there a way one can change or delete an existing user name? For identification purposes, I would rather use a different user name (MuJami). As Racepacket pointed out, I made this request previously.

As there does not appear to be a method to edit one's user name I thought it best to create a "new" profile. Unfortunately (yet understandably)someone misconstrued this act as sockpuppetry.

Please advise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John E. Rhea (talk • contribs) 01:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You were using both accounts interchangably, hence the block. If you wish to use the MuJami account, I can unblock that one and then block the John E. Rhea (just so that you or nobody else can use that account). How does that sound? –MuZemike 01:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, let's do that. I'd rather use the MuJami account...Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by John E. Rhea (talk • contribs) 01:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done I have now switched the blocks. You should be able to edit now with the MuJami account. If you have any other questions, please let me know. Thank you, –MuZemike 01:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Sarastro1

Could you please be more restrained with the duck test please? He isn't BlackJack (per CU) and it is not rational for some guy to build up two very long articles for FA/GA such as Wally Hammond and Wilfred Rhodes which would probably take 30+ hours each if their raison d'etre is to sock for extra reverts and votes. BlackJack is very well known at WP:CRIC and two people touching an article doesn't guarantee linkage by any means YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, crap. I'm so sorry. Yeah, perhaps I should back off the pedal a bit. –MuZemike 04:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I would just like to point out that it was not difficult to tell that I am not a sock of Blackjack, if you simply checked my contributions and talk pages. BJ and I had several discussions on our talk pages and he even changed things I had written in articles. I suspect that somewhere along the line, you and I have both been entangled in a dispute between two other users, Blackjack and a multiple sockpuppet going under various names. I was misguided enough to stick up for BJ, who had been very helpful and welcoming when I first joined wikipedia - which is more than has happened here. There are some slightly dubious things going on at the moment, and it would be quite nice if people spent more time looking into this rather than supporting a user, who keeps persecuting Blackjack, by blocking right, left and centre. Feel free to check out Richard Daft, HughGal, BrownEdge and several others, including IP addresses. I do not plan to get involved in this any more, in case I am accused of being anyone else. I will stick to the articles, and not worry about others being unjustly treated.--Sarastro1 (talk) 21:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

User that was recently banned...

We left you messages on top of your page concerning the user you blocked. It appears to me that they edited under the profile of User:JaeDizzley14 and User:995Star before creating User:190fordhouse. For that reason this user is guilty of more sock puppetry and would be host, as JaeDizzley14/995Star made similar edits before 190fordhouse signed up on July 27, 2009. Please read the other discussion at the top of page as most of us aren't administrators and can't perform certain functions. User:Hammond1993 is a new creation by User:JaeDizzley14/User:190fordhouse/User:995Star and appears to be more destructive.Carmaker1 (talk) 17:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Aw, crap, I didn't see it, then. Probably someone else posted on the bottom of the page, and I didn't see your post near the top. I'll look into it. –MuZemike 17:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Fits the pattern down to a "T". Sock indefinitely blocked and tagged, 190fordhouse now indefed. –MuZemike 17:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much, it's a relief that hopefully more of the newer edits on pages will be relevant ones.Carmaker1 (talk) 17:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

User:MuZemike/Plaxico

Is your draft going to mainspaced any time soon? See related discussion. –xeno^talk 20:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure the term is notable enough. All I know is that I should have it reliiably sourced. –MuZemike 20:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious to know if anyone outside wikipedia uses it. A more stark/severe metaphor than Plaxico Burress might be the Biblical figure Haman. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Sock

Hello, MuZemike. Please, see this, urgent action is needed

User_talk:Tbsdy_lives#Human_Rights_Believer_.28II_appearance.29

Tbsdy is not online now, and i trust in your judgment. Human Right Believer was highly DE editor, as all of . [11] i send suspect, he just reverted. There is no question about that, it's him. For more information, i am here. --Tadija (talk) 21:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast! Thanks, as you see, there is already tons of vandal revert to be done. If more time passes, more things to revert. Highly DE! --Tadija (talk) 21:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Dominic ran a check,  Confirmed that Human Rights Believer Mex Ray Trex, and User:Barnsey Boo are the same. The underlying IP has also been hardblocked. –MuZemike 21:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, i will ask him in the future. All best, --Tadija (talk) 21:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks yet again. I truly appreciate the speed and efficiency. Cheers, -Thibbs (talk) 02:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi MuZemike, thank you so much for your quick actions on dealing with User talk:Fbeals. Both the SPI board and the Spam reporting board can tend to be a bit slow to pick up and deal with issues, and I appreciate your speedy work. Given that the violations were happening on BLPs, I'm glad that we could get this sorted out quickly. Thank you again! Jhfortier (talk) 04:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Happy face!

Hello MuZemike, Andyzweb has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks for providing copies of those articles andyzweb (talk) 23:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

blocky fun of Sfcongeredwards

You've been fiddling with the block of Sfcongeredwards (talk · contribs). What's up? It seems like a run-of-the-mill vandal who is claiming hacked account. tedder (talk) 23:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Right. I was going to AGF until I looked into it a bit further and saw your talk page comment. I also wasn't quite sure as to how to proceed with the "compromised account" situation. Anyways, that may very well be moot. I'll keep the block as-is. –MuZemike 23:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Gotcha. No worries, I just couldn't piece it all together from your block comments. The editor is asking for an unblock, I'll try to explain things a little further. tedder (talk) 23:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Your recent block

Hi, I noticed you just blocked 190fordhouse; I tried repeatedly in three languages to engage this user in discussion over whether he had sources for any of his data points or whether it was all just guesses and mischief, but he refused to respond. Is it possible for you to automatically revert those edits of his which have not been manually undone already? I've reverted several of his edits to articles on my watchlist that I knew to be false and even tracked him to related articles and reverted him there, as have other editors, but what's really needed is to undo the damage we haven't caught or don't have time to chase down. Thanks, I'll watch this page for your reply, Abrazame (talk) 08:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

You can do that. There shouldn't be anything stopping you from reverting those edits which you know aren't within the appropriate guidelines and policies. –MuZemike 08:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

If you go to any of their contributions (190fordhouse, Statmo1921, SonnywithaChancefan, 67.85.172.6) you should be able to pinpoint any of the "damage" made. –MuZemike 08:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought administrators could roll all of a vandal's edits back with one click of a button. This guy has made dozens a day as 190fordhouse, I shudder to think how many he's made under his other names; it's too much for one person to click onto each edit, click "diff", click "undo", and click "save" for each one. Abrazame (talk) 09:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

You're thinking of Special:Nuke, where admins can delete all of a vandal's created pages with one click. –MuZemike 17:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a script for mass rollbacks, but it only works if the edit's the newest revision of a page, and there isn't going to be a manual check before the rollback takes place. Do you want to do that? Tim Song (talk) 19:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Tim, thanks to both of you for responding. It seems like that would be called for here. On the off chance that this editor made any responsible edits among all the vandalism (for lack of a better word) it should be his efforts to restore them — preferably with references this time to make sure he's not just repeating his pattern — and not ours to pore over hundreds of edits and fact-check each one. It's not like he did two a day or two a week, he often made a dozen a day under the one username I was following and apparently more under the others. If those edits are not the most recent, then I guess those articles have eyes on them and some of those edits were likely reverts. If those edits are the most recent, it's likely they're low-traffic articles that could take quite a long time for someone to arrive and recognize the data is erroneous. If you agree with my assessment, I'd appreciate if you could use the mass rollbacks. I would point out that the guy has not once responded on his talk page to defend or explain a single edit. Thanks, Abrazame (talk) 00:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The user has surfaced again under I.P. addressevidence here and is adding links to dates again. Can you give them a warning or block them? I thought that when you are blocked you may not edit until blocking period ends.Carmaker1 (talk) 10:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we might have a new sockpuppet on our hands, Hammond1993. This user just started editing on the 29th, just days after the sockpuppets were blocked and editing some of the same articles that 190fordhouse, Statmo1921, SonnywithaChancefan, and 67.85.172.6 also edited with some of the same date changing on albums and singles, such as Shedrack Anderson "III", Brandi Williams, Blaque, Blaque Out, Waiting for Tonight, Natina Reed, Where My Girls At?, Get Along with You, Caught out There, Blaque (album), I'm Good (Blaque song) and Jackson family. Aspects (talk) 23:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate MuZemike's continued efforts to get to the bottom of this, but I ask again: is it not reasonable to roll back all of this editor's edits, especially now that he has been blocked indefinitely? It is completly unclear whether this has been done already and if not, why not. Abrazame (talk) 19:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that I don't know of any tools that will do them all at one like that. (Tim, do you know of any?) I'd be happy to grant you the rollback ability to help expedite such reverting (just don't abuse it or attempt to use it for anything other than vandalism). –MuZemike 17:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

User:John254/mass rollback.js can roll back all edits that can be rolled back. I've done one on Hammond1993's edits. Tim Song (talk) 18:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Now that Hammond1993 has been banned, I see a couple of IP addresses taking up some of the same date changes on the same articles, 98.197.203.199 and 204.2.37.158. Aspects (talk) 00:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Alinovic

The checkuser case of User:Alinovic left me with a feeling that we might have acted too fast in this case. I think the problem could have been taken care of with less invasive sanctions - for example topic banning Alinovic from linguistics and talk:linguistics untill we have better evidence. I don't generally like the duck rule as the sole basis for sactions as harsh as indefinte blocks, but prefer that any doubt should benefit the accused party. You mention in your closure that the user admitted to socking, that would of course be sufficient evidence for an indefinite block. I did not find any such admission in the link you provided, perhaps you can point me towards it? ·Maunus·ƛ· 08:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've unblocked the user, after (what is now) several users coming to me and saying that I may have erred here in judgment. –MuZemike 16:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I do strongly suspect (s)he is a sock - but I am willing to give him/her a chance to show that (s)he isn't. ·Maunus·ƛ· 16:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Halfwite/Witeink

On Peter Symonds' talk page there is a post from a Witeink (talk · contribs), who seems tpo be an obvious sock of Halfwite (talk · contribs) whom you blocked a few days ago. Nobody's blocked him yet, so I figured you should know so you can decide what to do. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 12:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Blaster Master: Overdrive

Since you have Blaster Master up for GAN, I'm letting you know of its upcoming sequel. GamerPro64 (talk) 00:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

February GA Sweeps update

Progress as of January 2010

Thanks to everyone's efforts to the GA Sweeps process, we are currently over 95% done with around 130 articles left to be swept! Currently there are over 50 members participating in Sweeps, that averages out to about 3 articles per person! If each member reviews an article once a week this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. At that point, awards will be handed out to reviewers. Per my message last month, although we did not review 100 articles last month, I still made a donation of $90 (we had 90 reviews completed/initiated) to Wikipedia Forever on behalf of all GA Sweeps reviewers. I would like to thank everyone's efforts for last month, and ask for additional effort this month so we can be finished. I know you have to be sick of seeing these updates (as well as Sweeps itself) by now, so please do consider reviewing a few articles if you haven't reviewed in a while. If you have any questions about reviews or Sweeps let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

New sockpuppet of 190fordhouse

Copied my note to you from above that might not have been seen: "Now that Hammond1993 has been banned, I see a couple of IP addresses taking up some of the same date changes on the same articles, 98.197.203.199 and 204.2.37.158." Aspects (talk) 22:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Both blocked. –MuZemike 15:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey there

Hey there. I noticed you put down David Tapp under review on the WP:GAN page a few days. I was just wondering when you were planning to review the article? I completely understand if you are busy I was just curious. Cheers, GroundZ3R0 002 23:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully sometime today I'll start reviewing it. Sorry, I had a very busy weekend. –MuZemike 15:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Participation at my RfA

Thank you for taking the time to weigh in on my RfA. It was successful, in that the community's wish not to grant me the tools at this time was honored. I'm taking all the comments as constructive feedback and hope to become more valuable to the project as a result; I've also discovered several new areas in which to work. Because debating the merits of a candidate can be taxing on the heart and brain, I offer this kitten as a low-allergen, low-stress token of my appreciation. --otherlleft 12:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Back again (sigh)

Gigogag has returned. (His new sock) Opened up investigation again. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I saw on IRC. I just blocked him. –MuZemike 01:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Tfoxworth's reincarnations

Despite your recent block on 2 IP ranges, permanently banned Tfoxworth is back today as User:166.166.706.222 and User:166.164.161.179 and User:166.164.167.219, etc. Please block. FactStraight (talk) 04:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I extended the range on the one rangeblock. Can you correct the one IP? It's impossible to have a "166.166.706.222". –MuZemike 04:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

See dif he's using as I write. FactStraight (talk) 04:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I just saw the other IP. I blocked that /19 range, too. Unfortunately, I have to keep the length on that rangeblock short as there are some recent good faith contributions by other people there. –MuZemike 04:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm posting the following plea on the talk pages of some admins & editors, so please help: Please see diff. The only fix I can see is to block (even briefly, but swiftly) IPs as soon as he begins to use them, and the only way that can happen is if admins put the articles he edits (among others, Line of succession to the Russian throne, Maria Vladimirovna, Grand Duchess of Russia, Maximilian von Götzen-Itúrbide and Nugzar Bagration-Gruzinsky) on their watchlists. I realize this isn't how admins prefer to manage these vandals, but is there any other way? Waiting until each new act of vandalism is reported by other editors gives him what he wants: 1. evidence that he is succeeding at diverting Wiki editors from doing the productive article work they come here to do 2. time during which his vandalisms appear to the public as Wikipedia's legitimate voice 3. proof that he is sufficiently persistent to compel Wikipedia to allow his vandalism to stand, while that of others is reverted. FactStraight (talk) 05:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

And sockpuppet User:24.56.31.108 FactStraight (talk) 05:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

And sockpuppet User:67.192.133.1 FactStraight (talk) 15:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

His revenge in the face of page protection is now to revert my past edits. Not a big hassle, since he's blocked from vandalizing the articles he cares about, whereas most of my edits on other articles have been minor & the major edits are being reverted by others whose edits he's trampling on to get at me. Still, is it possible that when his vandalizing IPs are blocked, his edits can be auto-reverted? 16:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't know if it's a Tfoxworth sock, but User:Konstantine 001 makes similar edits on articles, alters citations, is a sock of banned 92.54.240.68, and uses socks 188.169.143.17, 74.211.2.151 and 91.151.140.4. Why was he able to edit Line of succession to the Georgian throne if you've protected it? FactStraight (talk) 06:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

He's reverting the exact same edits. Blocked. The reason is because he is trying to create accounts to get around semi-protection. –MuZemike 18:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Unblock of User:PhilisOak

Just letting you know as you blocked the ip User:86.14.171.103 and this user was caught up in that block. Since this account pre-dated the ip's most recent block, I have granted an ip block exemption to this user. They appear to have made constructive edits and not vandalized. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, that's fine. I was also looking into that because I didn't see any autoblocks on him, but yes I did hardblock that IP (I tried to contact a CU on that but to no avail). –MuZemike 06:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

RE: Barnstar

Thanks a lot for the barnstar, Mike. It means a lot to me. Kindest regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 08:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Adilette1972

Hi, thanks for the range block regarding the alias's for this sockpuppet. It would appear no sooner than they have been blocked, they have re-registered a new account to continue their editing whilst I attempt to merge the page. Just judging from their name and their edits, I'm guessing that it's the same Spanish editor. New alias is User:Adizuecos _Will^dow (Talk) 09:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Sock blocked, Adilette semi-protected for a long while. –MuZemike 17:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

David Tapp

Hey again. Thanks for reviewing David Tapp for GA. I didn't mean to nominate that article when I was adding to the GAN page but I figured I'd let it slide since the VG section wasn't backlogged anyways so I'm not surprised it failed. Thanks for the tips and I'll get cracking. Cheers, GroundZ3R0 002 03:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Loaded magazine

Hello, I'm a staff member at Loaded magazine, and spent hours trying to add some cool images and info to our wikipedia page, and you undid them all and blocked me. Apologies, I'm new to this, but I've changed my username to something other than Ipcmedialtd, but please can you advise how I can get these changes redone? Can you advise how I can get these new images approved? I'm only trying to improve wikipedia. Thanks I'm now "froggrass" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Froggrass (talk • contribs) 19:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't get back to you earlier (I've been a little busy the last several days in real life.), but it's good that you changed your username to one that won't get you blocked for that alone. You have to keep in mind that accounts are meant for individuals and not for groups per policies that the Wikimedia Foundation (way beyond Wikipedia) has established long ago.

As far as the images are concerned, here's the thing about copyrights as it pertains to Wikipedia. As you may or may not know Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia consisting mainly of content licensed under the Creative Commons license ("for dummies" version of that text here). When you contribute to Wikipedia, such as adding text or media, you release those contributions under that license. The problem with your images is that they are still under copyright by your company, and they must be released from that copyright in order to be used here. You may want to read our page on donating copyrighted materials. You can get your owner (or whomever owns that copyright) to release said images from copyright by emailing permissions-commons@wikimedia.org; this is a good form letter to for such email requests. Hope that helps, –MuZemike 20:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Purge

Hey, MuZemike, can you make another Purge for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Nintendo membership list? I don't think some of the users are active on the list. GamerPro64 (talk) 19:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I was going to do that again on March 1 (six months from the last update). –MuZemike 19:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Page Protection

Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Copyedeye requesting unblock

You are the second-last person to block Copyedeye. The issue is whether he is a sock or meatpuppet of Mantanmoreland. Since he has answered some further questions since Seddon gave him an indef block in January, I am drawing your attention to the case one more time, to see what you think. I reviewed the unblock request, but declined to act on it and I would let the indef stand. I also notified the last blocking admin, Seddon, but he only edits sporadically so I thought to notify you as well. If you think there is nothing more to do here, maybe we should protect the Talk page so the request doesn't sit there indefinitely. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a closer look at it tomorrow. –MuZemike 02:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Another sock of User:Hunter2hunter

Hi, since you were the involved admin in the previous 2 reports, I thought you might like to know there's another sockpuppet of Hunter2hunter editing the same articles. I started the SPI at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Hunter2hunter. Cheers, XXX antiuser ^eh? 02:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked. –MuZemike 02:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. XXX antiuser ^eh? 03:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Well what do you know, there's another one. Reported at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hunter2hunter. XXX antiuser ^eh? 11:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Does this guy have anything better to do in his life? Anyways, I'm going to let a CU run a check on it. –MuZemike 15:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Xtinadbest is back

Just a note to tell you I put a suspected sock puppet tag at User talk:Lafiestavivawiki. After registering a new account a couple hours ago, the editor made edits on similar type articles as User:Xtinadbest and then went to that userpage and removed the sockmaster template you placed on that page [12]. Just telling you. Also, note the user basically admitted being a sockpuppet in her post at Talk:Innocent heart when she posted her request to not delete the article she created because "It would be unfair to delete an article for only being a banned user." Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked and User:Xtinadbest indefinitely semi-protected (hopefully, full-protection isn't necessary). –MuZemike 16:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Tfoxworth rampage

Now that his copy-cat IP, User:Factsstraight, has been banned he's reverting me as 212.78.230.242. Please help. FactStraight (talk) 13:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Indef block issued, keeping an eye on the IP. –MuZemike 16:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Irritability

I hope the irritation expressed here is directed at Xtinadbest, and not at me. I think we need to get a handle on exactly why the IP blocks put in place by the checkusers are so ineffective in this case.—Kww(talk) 15:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it's directed at Xtinadbest :-) –MuZemike 15:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

FTN TM thread

This Fringe Theory Noticeboard may be a relevant link for the arbcom case you started. Note sure, if FTN counts as part of the dispute resolution process, but in any case, the thread discussion covers some of the deleterious effects of the apparent COI editing, and some more affected articles. Regards. Abecedare (talk) 22:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll add that to the arbitration request. –MuZemike 01:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

No -hole anywhere

		The Buttock Barnpainting
		For your exceptional work at SPI, continued efforts at the Video game Wikiproject, and all around fantastic edits improving the site, I present to you this half-ass of the chiseled buttocks I am as yet not using. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 06:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, wow. Now, pray tell, where will I able to place that? –MuZemike 08:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Wherever it will be most visible to all of your elderly relatives. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

NW's talk page

You changed the protection level for NuclearWarfare talk page. Are you sure you did it right? I ask because not an hour went by and things have gotten only worse. Thank You. Outback the koala (talk) 02:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I suggest locking the page altogether for the time being. NW can figure it out later.. Outback the koala (talk) 02:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I only semi-protected it for an hour. I have now protected again, but for 3 hours this time. –MuZemike 02:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Outback the koala (talk) 04:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The Odd Couple

Both the article on The Odd Couple (Neil Simon's play) and the IMDB page for the film have Felix's last name spelled "Ungar." The play article says Felix's name was spelled "Unger" in the television series. Which way should it go?InspectorSands (talk) 16:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I always thought it was "Unger", but then again that was the TV series. If I reverted there not knowing it, then my apologies. –MuZemike 17:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

No big deal. I think I'll change it back, though, if that's not a problem. InspectorSands (talk) 17:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead. –MuZemike 17:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller (talk) 11:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

User:JI Hawkins is back.

Reported at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JI Hawkins. Thought you might like to know. XXX antiuser ^eh? 07:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Another development regarding JI and his suspected sock: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Spaceghostguy XXX antiuser ^eh? 22:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Argh, this guy really needs to get a life or at the very least quit pandering Wikipedia about how Colonel Sanders is part of a U.S. Government conspiracy in that he is actually still alive. The rest of the Internet is very suitable for his preaching, but not Wikipedia. –MuZemike 22:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

He seems to have branched out to Space Ghost's upcoming movie that nobody has yet heard about and vandalising other editors' pages by marking them as socks. XXX antiuser ^eh? 22:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Dispute resolution needed on christian arab article

It appears there will be a lot of disagreements because the other user(s) insist on conducting original research unsupported by reliable sources. I need advice on how this could be resolved so the Christian Arabs article could be improved in a neutral and unbiased manner. Thank you. --Qvxz9173 (talk) 22:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

About the Caribou and Dick Manitoba vandal and sockpuppet

About the Caribou and Dick Manitoba vandal and sockpuppet
I’ve asked this question:

How do I deal with this edit fight?

I’ve also pasted this message on to the following talk pages:
User talk:Dl2000
User talk:GB fan
User talk:Richeye
User talk:Ronhjones
User talk:Zhang He,
and, of course,
User talk:66.65.94.122.
70.54.181.70 (talk) 17:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Information about recurring vandalism (URGENT!)

Good morning Sir or Mrs.

I tell you that there is a user called Andresutz8000 or not, has too many nicknames is that after the "z", this user is a vandal that has been blocked and removed too many times in the Wikipedia in Spanish, due to the addition of unverified information , which is not true, the television media items such as channel Boomerang Latin America, also this user did an article called "The Cartoon Channel (India)," which does not exist, besides that this user is a child from Chile, 9 or 10 years, he believes this is a magic box, and what it does is mess Wikipedia, please check the page history "Boomerang (Latin American Channel)", and check, none of Retro Boomerang information is true, so I ask for your lock to all your accounts and also do a check Users to prevent their return.

I hope please read what I typed.

Thank you.

Mrojas6996 (talk) 22:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Tfoxworth

Hi, I see you have been blocking User:Tfoxworth Ip’s etc could block this one [13] before he rampages, thanks. - dwc lr (talk) 23:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Please block & revert: [14] 188.72.227.107 and [15] and [16]. Thanks FactStraight (talk) 12:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Rangeblocked. –MuZemike 14:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

And 195.242.152.14. FactStraight (talk) 06:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Bad Faith Sockpuppetry allegations

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/NickCT/Archive Lol. Is that your way of apologizing Muz? Anyway, it doesn't matter. No hard feelings. And for the record, I really meant no ill against you in the comments I made. This whole episode was a good example of a bad faith allegation made by a POV pushing editor trying to discourage others from seeking neutrality on wikipedia. NickCT (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's just disengage and go our own ways with it, OK? Continuing to dwell on it is only going to lead to more anguish and trouble. I stand by what I said last; going around and demanding apologies from everyone is normally in poor taste. Just drop it and move on. –MuZemike 22:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... Given as I'd said "It doesn't matter. No hard feelings", wouldn't that suggest I am dropping it? NickCT (talk) 22:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't interpret it that way, but let's do that. –MuZemike 00:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Please look before you leap

I don't use my Autoconfirmed status as a hammer to erase anonymous edits to talk pages. My genuine request for Rollbacker permission was deleted by you from a page entitled "Requests for granting rollback permissions" from another admin. It was NOT a unblock request, as you titled the changes, but a petition from which the entire page stems from. I would really appreciate it if you didn't do that to other peoples non-offensive comments on other peoples pages, and if you would please from now on read the header before reverting changes...? It's difficult enough contributing to the project without supervisors misreading and throwing my contribs away. Thanks, -Erik 04:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik Le Mesurier (talk • contribs)

I assure to you that we didn't mean any harm if you tried to make any edits you have tried to make. I hope that we have not tried to "throw your contributions away" as you have said, as that is obviously not our goal. However, please be assured that the rollback permission is only granted to those users who frequently revert those edits that are considered vandalism and not those which may be considered to be a part of a content dispute or something else. Keep in mind that the "rollback" permission is not to be used to keep anyone else other than vandals away.

Sincerely, –MuZemike 05:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Alfred_Seiwert-Fleige

Today I got attacked by Bischof-Ralph User:Ban_Yoo on my talkpage User_talk:Templeknight and accused of creating hoaxes. He deleted my article and posted rediculous stuff which is the opposite I am standing for and now they accuse me to be his sockpuppet!

This is my article: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Alfred_Seiwert-Fleige&diff=345104517&oldid=345100878

This is Bischof-Ralph´s article: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Alfred_Seiwert-Fleige&diff=345233078&oldid=345232662

I guess there is no more proof needed....

Please reset the article to the version before the vandalism happend and let it be discussed then. Since it contains 27 sources which will all be available to the editors it will be the best solution. Thank you. --Templeknight (talk) 22:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I will not until the case ends. Sorry if I protected The Wrong Version, but that happens. It's intended to stop the edit-warring and start discussion and negotiation on the talk page. Regards, –MuZemike 22:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Templeknight has posted his version of the article at the top of the talk page. Peridon (talk) 18:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Reverted and warned Templeknight not to do that again, or he will be blocked for disruption. –MuZemike 19:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I read these sentences:

"Please discuss any changes on the talk page;"

"This article has multiple issues. Please help improve the article or discuss these issues on the talk page."

So I was thinking that the TALK PAGE is the place where the facts about the article should be discussed.

So I posted the facts and sources to the talk page with the goal to start a discussion about it.

Now you tell me this is wrong.

Please explain to me why this is wrong and what the purpose of all this is.

Before you told me: "It's intended to stop the edit-warring and start discussion and negotiation on the talk page."

--Templeknight (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Singopo

I am not sure where on the SPI it is best to post this (under your last comment seemed the right place - but that is in the area marked for Admins,clarks and CU's ) - so I will post it here - happy to move it to a better location if you wish :

I have mixed feelings on the issue - he only admitted it after it became likely a CU would be run, he did not respond to your request to list his other accounts and explain his reason for doing it. He did use the accounts to vote on the same AfD more than once over a period of nearly 2.5 years - in his defence I don't think that he was successful in changing the outcome of any, though in one he came close. On balance, though I do think a enforced wikibrake may do him some good - I think you are probably right in that it would be more punitive than preventative. The thing I will learn is to be a little more suspicious - as before the slip up I had absolutely no inclination. Codf1977 (talk) 18:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd let anyone comment in that section as it's more open to everybody. But anyways, thanks for your input. You may wish to do a spot-check on those AFDs which were vote-stacked and see if, without the sock !voting/commentary, if the AFD results would have changed. He hasn't edited almost a week now, so he may be taking a voluntary wikibreak, which I think is good. –MuZemike 18:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

In the interests of openness I will cross-post my comments then to that section of the SPI - I think he affected two AfD most recently was this one Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Berlin Debating Union which was voted on 4 times - the result was no consensus (due to the vote stacking) however it was deleted under WP:V. Also this one Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Erskine was probably affected as well, but it was later deleted under a second AfD. Codf1977 (talk) 19:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

MyRadio's Deleted Last Year

Hello,

I am looking to add a page about MyRadio but I see that a similar page was deleted previously. I am interested to learn about why the page was deleted and what the process is for adding this page to Wikipedia?

Here is some information about MyRadio (www.myradio.com).

MyRadio is a trademark of MyRadio, Inc. a Delaware corporation is a company that competes with companies like Muzak, XM Business and DMX. However, MyRadio does not charge the business owner a fee but instead pays qualified businesses for the privilege of providing foreground music while playing ads for neighboring businesses.

MyRadio has also trademarked the phrase "Block Level Marketing" (TM) to represent the core business function which is to help shopping areas such as Strip Malls and Downtown areas to create a more “vibrant shopping area” which means capitalizing on the people already shopping and eating in the neighborhood.

MyRadio locates the “anchor store” in the shopping area which is typically the business with the most foot traffic on the block and where there is a “captive audience” of consumers. The mix of advertisements for the local area with the music programming chosen by the store location is unique to this market space. The ads are asking people to walk next door or across the parking to learn more about attractive offers. Some national ads are sold but the core of the business is to help smaller retailers attract customers.

MyRadio offers the most targeted demographics in the advertising industry for these small businesses and the ability to create more foot traffic which is what creates a more vibrant shopping area.

Nealfduncan (talk) 17:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

The first thing that you need to realize is that Wikipedia is an enycylopedia and not an advertising/marketing vehicle or a place to get whatever you're promoting visible in a search engine. Second, being the COO of the company, you have a conflict of interest with the subject, and that provides problems as far as neutrality of the article is concerned. Third, there was a rough consensus by a small cross-section of the community that there was not enough coverage to meet our notability guidelines; as we're not an indiscriminate directory, we do have minimal guidelines as to what is included and what is not, and it was determined that the article on your company did not meet that at that time.

You're going to need to do is actually find some reliable secondary sources (that is stuff that is not blogs or Internet forum postings or run-of-the-mill directory listings or traffic results) that can firmly establish relevance. Hope this helps. If you have any other questions, please let me know. Thank you, –MuZemike 18:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Catherinenuel

Hi, I was the one who submitted this SPI, but because the suspects have shown very different editing styles since then I now endorse its closure. There is a large enough backlog of SPIs as it is. Rest assured their other violations are being handled elsewhere. Can't find any "speedy closure" criteria for SPIs, but if it's anything like AfDs this notice should do it. Thanks! Smocking (talk) 20:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks like Spitfire already took care of it :) –MuZemike 20:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

My bad. He's even quicker than my refresh button. Thanks anyway. Smocking (talk) 20:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Super Monkey Ball: Step & Roll

On February 23, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Super Monkey Ball: Step & Roll, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Ucucha 06:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

TH43's IPs

Hi Mike. Regarding the sockpuppet case of TH43 and their IPs. He has another one (WHOIS is BellCanada like the rest) and has same MO. I don't know where to put this since the case has been closed. Is it grounds to go ahead and block them or do I need to officially report it somewhere and let it go through the process. He's trying to edit war with me at Law & Order: Special Victims Unit (season 11) and has left me this message. Thanks. —Mike Allen 06:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't bother re-reporting. His rangeblock just expired and went right back to business as usual. Same range blocked for 1 month. –MuZemike 19:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. :-) —Mike Allen 19:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

sock of blocked user

This ip was blocked by you for inserting the same content about autism see the edit summary also Do you want me to make a complaint about this? and the edit summary from this new user DeanButlerFan if you remove this again I will file a complaint about you. .. The ip is also a sock of a permanently blocked sock master. Quack quack. Could you put DeanButlerFan out of his misery for me. Off2riorob (talk) 18:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

No I'm not a sock. Are you trying to emulate your unelectable hero by bullying others? (DeanButlerFan (talk) 18:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC))

Pinged a checkuser, and the good news is that DeanButlerFan is  Confirmed and hence indefinitely blocked. The bad news is that the underlying IP is one of those small rotating ISPs from the UK, which would cause too much collateral damage if hardblocked. Sorry, –MuZemike 19:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, there are more people that know the story now, so as User_talk:DrKiernan said to me when I asked him what to do as is seems never ending repeated behavior, "We must continue to block, revert and ignore." Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 19:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there discussion of the IP abuse?

Thanks for allowing me to filter past the abuse block (I don't edit at the library that often, but when i need time away fromt he young-uns, its the place to go). Is there any sustained discussion about the sorts of abuse occurring? I know the IP folk at the CPL can and do work extensively with Wikipedia when cases of abuse occur. Perhaps I could drop off some info for them. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Just replied on your talk page when you replied on mine. –MuZemike 21:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet reports

For something like Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dwanyewest, do I need to list it on the SSP page or does a clerk do that? Thank you. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I listed it. –MuZemike 17:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay thank you. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Oversight?

You blocked the most recent Lolipopz99 socks but not the IP, which has edited as recently as this morning. Not sure it that was just an oversight or ...? In any case, thanks for your help on this and prior sock cases. TheJazzDalek (talk) 23:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and blocked that IP for a week. –MuZemike 23:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, TheJazzDalek (talk) 00:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Whoa, he's got a new IP already. TheJazzDalek (talk) 01:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if I was a little late (had some RL issues), but blocked. –MuZemike 20:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem at all; thanks for handling it. Please let me know if you'd rather I "go though channels" with these instead of hassling you. Best, TheJazzDalek (talk) 20:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It it's obvious and only one or two, just ping me directly. If there's a whole bunch of them, however, it may be better to submit another SPI so that we can get CU on it. –MuZemike 20:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks again, TheJazzDalek (talk) 21:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments on Keith Thompson by someone claiming to be the subject.

How does one deal with this? The IP claims to be Keith Thompson himself... XXX antiuser ^eh? 00:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

You've done the right thing so far in the edit summary by trying to direct him to the talk page; make sure you also notify him on his user talk as well. You may also wish to direct him to OTRS as they are good at handling stuff like this. –MuZemike 00:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay thanks. I've notified the user via their talk page. Cheers, XXX antiuser ^eh? 01:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

DesGarcon

Another sock! [17] Should I enter another SPI report? Postoak (talk) 02:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it's still open as it's awaiting CheckUser. Just add it to the list of socks. I'll block. –MuZemike 02:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Postoak (talk) 02:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Reblock needed

Evening. If you have a minute, User talk:66.233.23.3 (Excuseme99 sock) needs a reblock. I made a case here before realising that it was the old IP. Thanks. Nymf _talk/contr. 04:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked 3 months. –MuZemike 07:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Marcus Brute

Hi there. Could you just drop back to check this request for autoblock lift? There is a tag saying its lifted, but it still appears to be in place. And the SPI that is in the unblock request doesn't exist (or I can't find it anyway) so I'm unsure if this is a risky sock or a genuine victim of an autoblock. Since you were the blocking admin I'm assuming you have knowledge? Cheers, SGGH ^ping! 11:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

In addition, that IP was also hardblocked by a CheckUser. I've granted the user IP block exempt status. –MuZemike 15:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

marking as closed

Why did you mark this as closed? [18]. A new sock puppet had shown up and I'd asked the CU to check that one as well.--Crossmr (talk) 00:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Because you obviously snuk that one in. I'll relist. –MuZemike 00:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I "snuck" it in because it hadn't been closed and it showed up as related. Since you're an admin, could you stop by LittleTommyC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and block the latest harassing sock. Maybe give my talk page a semi-protect. Apparently they've taken it personally that I suggested one of their trolls be blocked for harassing users.--Crossmr (talk) 01:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Done and done. –MuZemike 01:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

User:WikiDude1776

What a suck-up. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, even the socks have to admit that they appreciate my hard work :) –MuZemike 01:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Haha, but I think it was more like "I'm going to say nice things about MuZemike so he doesn't block my eleventy-seventh sock." Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 February newsletter

Round one is over, and round two has begun! Congratulations to the 64 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our first round. A special well done goes to Sasata (submissions), our round one winner (1010 points), and to Hunter Kahn (submissions) and TonyTheTiger (submissions), who were second and third respectively (640 points/605 points). Sasata was awarded the most points for both good articles (300 points) and featured articles (600 points), and TonyTheTiger was awarded the most for featured topics (225 points), while Hunter Kahn claimed the most for good topics (70). Staxringold (submissions) claimed the most featured lists (240 points) and featured pictures (35 points), Geschichte (submissions) claimed the most for Did you know? entries (490 points), Jujutacular (submissions) claimed the most for featured sounds (70 points) and Candlewicke (submissions) claimed the most for In the news entries (40 points). No one claimed a featured portal or valued picture.

Credits awarded after the end of round one but before round two may be claimed in round two, but remember the rule that content must have been worked on in some significant way during 2010 by you for you to claim points. The groups for round two will be placed up shortly, and the submissions' pages will be blanked. This round will continue until 28 April, when the top two users from each group, as well as 16 wildcards, will progress to round three. 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; thank you to all doing this last round, and particularly to those helping at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. 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, Fox, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Completed!

Thanks to everyone's amazing efforts in February, we have reviewed all of the articles and are now finished with Sweeps! There are still about 30 articles currently on hold, and once those reviews are completed, I will send you a final message about Sweeps process stats including the total number of articles that were passed and failed. If you have one of these open reviews, be sure to update your count when the review is completed so I can compile the stats. You can except to receive your award for reviewing within the next week or two. Although the majority of the editors did not start Sweeps at the beginning in August 2007 (myself included), over 50 editors have all come together to complete a monumental task and improve many articles in the process. I commend you for sticking with this often challenging task and strengthening the integrity of the GA WikiProject as well as the GAs themselves. I invite you to take a break from reviewing (don't want you to burn out!) and then consider returning/starting to review GANs and/or contribute to GAR reviews. With your assistance, we can help bring the backlog down to a manageable level and help inspire more editors to improve articles to higher classes and consider reviewing themselves. Again, thank you for putting up with difficult reviews, unhappy editors, numerous spam messages from me, and taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aatomic1

Re your comments on this, Þjóðólfr is intending to make an unblock request in the near future, and since his block isn't for sockpuppetry I think this case may need looking at after all. I knew at the outset checkuser wasn't possible due to the age of the accounts and it'd have to be based on behaviour. Cailil thinks there's some quacking going on FYI. Thanks. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

thanks

thanks for the offer of a possible unblock on my account, but I decided to take a break for wikipedia for a while, and the block seemed to be a good way of doing so. 119.173.81.176 (talk) 16:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Requests for unblock page moving very slowly

Hello. The requests for unblock page has been moving very slowly today, and some users have been waiting quite a few hours. Just wondering if you could help. If you can't, please delete this message. Thanks.Chuckcreator (talk) 16:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

SP/I

Sorry I didn't get to fixing it sooner, but I fixed up the page as someone had messed with Bambu's page. I had it open and then walked away, so I have fixed it to what it should have looked like. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't matter anyways. CU won't be able to do anything because of the stale sockmaster. –MuZemike 04:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Please help me, editing conflict

You probably may not care, but I have several issues I'm dealing with here. A user named User: Harout72 and also User: Kww are undoing information I've provided. Harout72 has provided wrong dates, which I have undone and replaced because they are not consistent with articles for the singles and albums. For the past 2 years I have edited at that page, despite being a rookie editor in 2007-2008. Not until recently has anyone sufficiently cleaned up the article. However, I noticed mistakes and discrepancies. In order to be providing information on this group(as well as many others), I have needed to research many articles, watch many videos, and listen to many comments made by them dating back to 1992. For that reason when I post dated material and chronological information it is usually correct as confirmed by what I analyze all over the web relating to them and by my studying my information. Harout72 has felt he has a right to control the article and its changes after "cleaning" it up. In addition to that he has stooped down to false accusations of vandalism, sly insults, and attempting to accuse me of edit-warring. This stems from the change I made here [19]. I was accused of damaging the article(Is this damage?[20]). User: Kww decided to undo my change as a whole rather only remove the parts relating to their 1996 single I'll Never Break Your Heart[21]. Before making this change[22], I was still in the middle of messaging both users on their pages. The lengthy paragraphs of talk page messages and excessive attempts to proofread them resulted in me not saving them to the talk pages before undoing Kww's revert to the Backstreet Boys article[23][24]. I was then accused by Harout72 of edit-warring with him as he undid my edit again[25] and then warned by Kww simultaneously[26]. Harout72 hasn't been warned, which to me proves an oddity in Kww favoring him. I defended my actions again, only to be insulted by both users claiming my ALL my insertions were sub-par and that theirs were superior. I have backed away from the article to prevent myself from being blocked. He is currently undoing a lot of factual edits made by me, despite only me being warned[27]. This user is getting away with deleting information from the article and being supported by another editor, while accusing others of the same thing. I really do not believe that because someone cannot provide a source for a change that it means false information should be left in an article. The dates there provided I've established to be not be release dates. Billboard relates those dates he gave to highest charting day or week on the Billboard 200[28]. The Toronto published their 1996 album to be number one on October 30, 1996 and ahead of Celine Dion's Falling Into You. Yet he gives a date of February 1, 1997. The same mistake is applied to their Backstreet Boys by him giving January 31, 1998 when in the Wikipedia article[29] and on MTV it is stated to be Tuesday, August 12, 1997. I said that all the dates I changed on that page didn't correspond with the actual given dates by many trusted websites, yet him and Kww still undo my changes and render them not factual. Please help me with this. If you need to ban me I understand.

The users User: Harout72 and User: Mad Hatter make me question if they are the same person as they hardly communicate on talk pages, but yet handle edits on Wikipedia in a similar manner as if they do. They use the same terminology by calling changes to the article "damage". They only have communicated one time on User: Harout72's talk page, which appears to be fishy. After that no talk at all. I wonder if they are sock puppets. I'll understand if you don't have time for my issues. Thank you--Carmaker1 (talk) 08:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for help or lack of it. I realize you only deal with sock puppetry.--Carmaker1 (talk) 09:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

need little help

hi, you recently made an undo to the Korean Truth and Reconciliation page for someone who keeps copying and pasting materials onto the article. He's been at it for quite some time and using 2 ip addresses to do it. Is there anything that can be done about it?Pintosaur (talk) 06:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The three involved IPs have all been blocked for 1 month. If any more starts coming in, let me know, and I'll semi-protect the page. –MuZemike 15:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

SPI of latest EZW sock

Hi, You replied "Self-endorsing for CheckUser attention to check for sleepers and block any and all underlying IPs and ranges", but as far as I know most of his socks have been on a very dynamic IP range (208.54.14.0/8) that seems to include several editors who contribute positively. A soft block is probably safer. Is it possible to auto-tag new users on a certain IP range? Then we could block them as soon as they make any Gonzales-related edits. Smocking (talk) 17:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You could request an edit filter for automatic stuff like that. Other than that, other than what we're doing right now, that's about it. –MuZemike 17:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Done Smocking (talk) 17:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

2 week block for sockpuppetry?

This seems extremely lenient. Was there any discussion? — goethean ॐ 18:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm willing to give him another chance. If you disagree, you can propose a longer block at the administrators' noticeboard. –MuZemike 18:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Qwerty450

I'm afraid you got tricked by Qwerty450 (talk · contribs). This is a 100% obvious sock of banned user Wikinger (talk · contribs), one of the most disruptive and persistent sockpuppeters I've ever encountered. Can you please re-block him? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Whatever you folks want to do. I think I've been getting very rusty on my judgment (regarding whether or not to AGF is concerned) as of late. –MuZemike 22:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Really not true, I am Aminullah of Chechen origin, living in Poland. Qwerty450 (talk) 22:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

No blame in getting tricked by Wikinger – you are not the first. Takes a bit of experience to recognize his antics. Anyway, I've reblocked him now. Watch out for follow-up disruption. As a rule, any account or IP that talks about Wikinger socks is Wikinger himself. He likes revert-warring against himself or reporting his own socks from time to time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: RFA

Thanks for the thought; if people keep asking me like this I might accept at some point. (You're the third to mention it in the past few months). For now though, I have no desire to work in the "admin areas" like AfD, which would be necessary to pass any RfA. I appreciate the gesture, though! --PresN 03:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

OK. No problem. If you change your mind, please let me know. –MuZemike 03:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Hexa2010 still evading block

Hexa2010 is still evading block as [30]. In this edit [31] he keeps on adding the same unreliable source which is a forum post interpreting a dissertation and in this edit[32], he removes referenced material and adds material based on a movie site and a youtube video. As well as adding unreferenced material. Wikinpg (talk) 00:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Also still causing trouble as [33] by adding the same link to Naga people of Sri Lanka which is original synthesis & interpretation. Also adding unreferenced claims to Jaffna. Wikinpg (talk) 00:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

RfC on Community de-adminship

You are receiving this message because you contributed to Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC and have not participated at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC or been directly informed this RfC has opened. Please accept my apologies if you have been informed of and/or participated in the RfC already.

This RfC has opened and your comments are welcome and encouraged. Please visit Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Another sock

You kindly cleared up the various socks of Jonathansamuel following by SPI report. As suspected we have another one starting up today User:Siotinglsiotingl. As before the sockmaster sets up an account, runs it for a day or so before moving across to the Heidegger page. I don't know to unarchive the original SPI report (or if that is the correct thing to do) hence raising it here. Is a range block of some type not possible? --Snowded ^TALK 21:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, clear sock and blocked/tagged. He's getting smart (as it's evident he was trying to go around the semi-protection by getting autoconfirmed). I'm going to ping a CheckUser and see if we can stop this sockfarm. –MuZemike 22:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and here we have another, same pattern user:FriedrichLGFrege --Snowded ^TALK 03:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Zeljko Boskovic

Hi MuZemike. I see from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeljko Boskovic that you have been in touch with the article's subject and subsequently blanked the AfD. The page is being recreated by User:Plexio2. If there is a BLP concern here, would it be worth salting the article page? Gonzonoir (talk) 09:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead and delete and salt. I explicitly told him to create a userspace draft and specifically gave him instructions on how to do so. Otherwise, there's not much to do. The guy's socked before, too, but I'm willing to AGF here and hope he can do something right. –MuZemike 09:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm actually not an admin, so I've just tagged it for deletion, but I'll put a note on the article talk page and hopefully the deleting admin will pick it up. Gonzonoir (talk) 09:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Since I'm now involved, I shouldn't be the admin to do that. –MuZemike 09:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

That's fine; I've left a note and will leave it to whatever admin reviews my CSD tag. Gonzonoir (talk) 09:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I have now added Plexio2 to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Daznam. (Not asking you to do anything about it, just letting you know.) Gonzonoir (talk) 10:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

London 1883 chess tournament

At Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Newcastleman7/Archive you suggested that page protection be requested if the vandalism continued. One of the IPs vandalized it again about 12 hours ago and was blocked for a short time. I requested semi-protection for that page, but it was denied (Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#London 1883 chess tournament.) Is there any way to protect the page or stop the vandals? Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 18:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, he has come back to that IP again after the last block I placed – a good indicator that we're dealing with IPs that are not that terribly dynamic. Let's hold on the semi-protection for right now; I mean, if we can place long-term IP blocks as opposed to protection, I'd rather do the former. BTW, Newcastleman7 is now indefinitely blocked, if that really matters at this point. –MuZemike 18:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for whatever you can do to help. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 18:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

SPI trainee clerk

Nathan said you may have time to train me, that right? If you would like to interview me first to get a feel for my wikitude, I completely understand. Whatever you need, just let me know, I'll watch your page. Auntie E. (talk) 18:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry we didn't get back to you earlier. We'd be happy to bring you aboard as an SPI clerk. Right now, I'm trying to take a little break from SPI clerking, but I'd still be able to help train others out. To start, be familiar with the following:

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerks → basic stuff about SPI clerks as well as who else is clerking
• Wikipedia:CheckUser → the most important policy to go through as far as clerks are concerned, especially when deciding to endorse or decline CheckUser requests.
• Wikipedia:Sock puppetry → also a very important policy as far as what constitues sock puppetry and what may not. Keep in mind that, as with anything else, there are "grey areas" that need to be dealt with accordingly.
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerk and checkuser procedures → It's a good read, even though it does need some updating to current practice.
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Administrators instructions → Even though you're not an administrator, it is a good idea to go through this (most of which I have re-written myself) as it provides good information about the handling of SPI cases and what to expect.

With that said, we do have an IRC channel at #wikipedia-en-spi ^connect if you choose to use it; most of our clerks and CheckUsers come onto there, and it provides up-to-date changes and updates of SPI cases. If you don't use that, that is also fine.

That should get you started as far as getting to know how SPI works. The last thing I need to tell you that we had a bot that used to handle most of the manual tasks for us. Unfortunately, that bot is indefinitely down and will not likely come back. Hence, we manually move SPI cases around (from the non-CU queues to the CU-queues and from the "clerk approval" queues, etc.). Make sure you know how the WP:SPI page is set up so you know what's going on. Also, make sure you know how the {{RFCU}} template works.

I know this is quite a bit, but just take a little at a time. If you have any questions, let me or another clerk or CheckUser know, and we can help you out. –MuZemike 09:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll get started reading this weekend. I'm already set up at the IRC chatroom. Spitfire was helping me earlier on that. Appreciate the help! Auntie E. (talk) 15:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Alfred

I'm slightly puzzled by your statement that Michelle is against the Napierski viewpoint. It was Michelle that reverted the article to the version that tries to legitimise him and to publicise him (irrelevantly to the article's subject). Papphase is the one removing Napierski from the article. Michelle was apparently cleared by Checkuser in the last run of the SPI - but still could be meat... Peridon (talk) 18:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

That would mean that they would be edit warring with themselves, as the Bischof-Ralph socks were reverting Michelle cannon's version of the article. –MuZemike 18:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget the sock that 'claimed' Alfred was a 'costume dresser'. Bischof-Ralph seems very devious and is quite capable of setting up diversions. Peridon (talk) 19:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking through the diffs, Papphase (who is an editor of many subjects at the German WP) is restoring the article to the non-Napierski version, while Michelle Cannon (very nearly SPA) and the now blocked Theophil have been bringing Napierski back and removing the warnings issued in Germany against S-F being recognised as a bishop. I've read at least one of the warnings - I can find nothing that legitimises S-F or Napierski. Please note - religiously I am totally neutral in this. Not only am I not a Catholic of any persuasion, I am not even a Christian. Peridon (talk) 20:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

FYI I came to peridon 2 times for help because papphase is being aggressive in his edits... I really dont care which version is up as long as it states true facts and papphase is edit warring merely for personal vendetas.. it is obivous in his comments and how insulting and rude he is... ive noticed many people get blocked for being rude to editors so why is he allowed to get away with it? and why am i constantly being accused of being some sort of play monkey with this bischof napierski. i dont know him... i support the article because it makes sense but i have no connection with the bishop napierski. why is papphase allowed to get away with lies? he lies about the german government.... i dont trust him--

There is proof of papphases lies on the alfred talk page....please look and also... the edits i have made are only typo graphical errors and the article i have reverted is truthful .... Is there a way to block papphase for his constant abbrassive behavior and for lying on the talk page? Michelle cannon (talk) 21:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

April GA drive

Hey. I posted elsewhere but thought it better to leave a note. By chance would it be alright if we co-coordinated it? Would help in case one or the other of us burns out for a bit, or if you get run down with SPI work. I got a couple ideas on how to reach out and bring many editors into this one as well in hopes that we can really make a dent into this. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

That would be great if you can help out! If you wish, you can go ahead and make any changes that I may have overlooked on the GAN drive page. –MuZemike 20:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

SPI case help

Hello MuZemike, I have been on the verge of filing a sockpuppet case for weeks now, but am very unsure on how to proceed. I was reading the WP:SPI page and saw that editors could ask for assistance, and am asking if you could give me some guidance. Thanks. DD2K (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

If you think there is sock puppetry going on, then please submit an SPI case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations#Submitting an SPI case, using one of the two forms below; the left one is for submitting an SPI without a CheckUser request, while the right one is for including a CheckUser request (see WP:CHECKUSER for more information on that). Replace "SOCKMASTER" with whomever is behind all the sock puppet accounts, click the button, fill in the suspected sock puppets as indicated in the edit box. Include your evidence, and then save the page without including a heading (that's already provided for you). If you have any other questions, let me know. –MuZemike 20:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks MuZemike, I will nervously give it a try. DD2K (talk) 20:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Easybibfreak

Another Gigogag sock, see investigation. Sigh... Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Materialscientist has already handled him. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Curiosity

Hey there - can you link me to where this resolution was shown? I can't find it in the SPI archives or active cases, but I've been known to be blind. Tan | 39 00:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vote (X) for Change (Archive) –MuZemike 00:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Rollback

Hi MuZemike!

I have a request. A few months ago, I made a request to you to remove my rollback rights for uncontroversial reasons. Since my removal was not due to abuse and requested by me, I request that the rights be restored. Thanks. —Mythdon ^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

There you go. –MuZemike 01:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by User:Kils

we are 226 in our corporation and 3 work with wikipedia. you should block user martin, his block is rediculous, or you will loose us soon Uwe Kils 16:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kils/Archive, I am not sure if Kils (talk · contribs) has ever even acknowledged the inappropriateness of his actions. Cirt (talk) 16:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Cirt. You seem to have absolutely no clue, despite probably having been told many many time, what conflict of interest means and entails. –MuZemike 16:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

MuZemike, FWIW, see also [34]. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 20:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Update: MuZemike, a fresh violation of the community-based-remedies imposed at User:Kils/Restriction, requested action on this, here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kils. Cirt (talk) 16:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

sighs –MuZemike 16:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

... for putting up with my thousands of revisions :) Does this mean you're forced to recuse from those cases? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

You could say that was a something completely separate from the socking situation at hand, so I don't think I would be involved per se (though that situation you mentioned had my head scratching for a bit). –MuZemike 17:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's kinda like arbcom ... highest number of recusals ever, since she's tangled with the entire Wiki at one time or another :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

As someone who was very much a target of the disruption by Yzak Jule, I was surprised to see your sock information about that user. I am very much aware of the socking issues within the Yzak Jule and Zengar Zombolt accounts, and of course I have no access to the checkuser results, but it really surprises me to see it tracing all the way to that other user. The Yzak user with whom I dealt seemed to have a rather specialized agenda, tied up with Something Awful and anime, and not extending much beyond that. Are you sure about this? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

You'd have to ask the checkusers who ran the recent check, more specifically Risker and Avraham. –MuZemike 18:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

(addendum) That's why I asked for clarification from them in that SPI case to be sure that I understood correctly. –MuZemike 18:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Trypto, the work under construction at User:Laser brain/Sandbox may help clarify (grandchildren on board, see Mattisse's old "granny defense"). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to let you folks know, Risker and Alison checked again, and we regret to say that an error has been made in the tagging. The confirmed socks belong to Zengar Zombolt and not Mattisse. I have no opinion yet as to the currently-open SPI case or Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gaydenver and probably won't act on it myself at least for another week. –MuZemike 16:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Saw that, but haven't had time to catch up. Have you adjusted the talk pages? I'm sure Laser will fix his sandbox soon ... what else needs to be done? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I already have re-tagged those confirmed socks as ZZ. Risker and Alison made the appropriate comments on the SPI's archive page. –MuZemike 16:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I don't know the arbs' and CUs' reasoning (not my job :), but I still think those accounts are grandkids, and several of Mattisse's accounts were shared. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Once the full protection on Mattisse's talk page expires, I will post a link to this discussion there, so that anyone reviewing that discussion there is not misled. Thanks to those who were willing to take a second look.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Once it expires? I hope there's no thinking this won't turn into a permanent ban ... too many productive editors are going to leave Wiki should that not occur :-( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Mattisse's talk page is fully protected. As an admin, i could edit, but respect it, and don't want to be seen as wheel warring. I am not addressing whether or not Mattisse may or may not return and this is not the forum. I simply feel it is appropriate for those who may read Mattisse's talk page to have easy access to the information here, and there is no direct link.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

FYI re: Bischof-Ralph

Just wanted to let you know that I've been in touch with User:M7 at it:wp since at least one of the socks has been active there today. M7 has dealt with Ralph in the past, and as it turns out, he is a meta-steward and has issued global blocks where possible/appropriate. (see my message and his response) I don't know (or much care) what's going on behind the scenes regarding User:Michelle cannon, but you (or the CU) may want to pass the info along to M7 since he's already clued in to the situation and can act globally if necessary. Regards -- Wine Guy~Talk 22:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Winsberger

Check out this guy's edits. Seems like a sockpuppet of User:Hugghezz, who is a sockpuppet of User:The abominable Wiki troll. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Argh, they'll never learn. –MuZemike 00:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

India film vandal

He's back: 123.237.211.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

122.172.122.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) as well.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

3 month rangeblock extended to 122.172.112.0/20; I don't think I can go to much larger than that, even given that this person has already jumped /16 ranges. The two hardest-hit articles, Mohanlal filmography and Asianet Film Awards, have both been semi-protected 1 month each. –MuZemike 14:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Another, now at 123.236.68.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log).— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Mohanlal semi-protected 1 week. –MuZemike 18:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Now they're at 123.237.214.6 (talk · contribs). Could you perhaps protect the article they began with as well? They're switching a sourced actor to their favorite actor directly against the source.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Just so you know, the article I speak of is Filmfare Best Actor Award (Tamil) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sockpuppetry

Hi MuZemike,

I noticed that you were one of the admins involved in the Jonathansamuel puppetry investigation. I seem to have encountered several of his more recent sock puppets: [35], but there's at least one IP outstanding and I'm not sure I've reported the puppetry correctly: [36]. Perhaps you could advise, at least for future reference? Thanks! Mephistophelian (talk) 05:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Cirt blocked the one IP, and I just blocked the other. Some think we're that dumb ... Anyways, Either way (reporting to SPI or pinging any individual administrator) is fine. Unfortunately, the person is hopping past any /16 IP range (or any /8 range in this case), so rangeblocking would be useless. –MuZemike 08:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I will also note that this person is very smart and is getting around the semi-protection by editing on other articles in order to get autoconfirmed status. I'll keep a watch on the subset of articles that they're warring on. –MuZemike 08:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Bell

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

Please take away their ability to edit that talk page. They're just using to insult others. They're just abusing it.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Rlevse already did. –MuZemike 15:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

blocked user by you still disrupting content

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:ChristiaandeWet blocked for a week by you continues editing and disrupting wikipedia's content, removing sourced citations by his own. Sockpuppet is :http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:87.127.196.220 Pietje96 (talk) 02:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

IP hardblocked 1 week, and ChristiaandeWet's block reset for the block evasion. –MuZemike 02:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

This vandal is back again with another sockaccount http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/HorDeVere he may have dynamic IP address. http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:87.86.240.174 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pietje96 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

ChristiaandeWet and HorDeVere are now indefinitely blocked, the first IP I blocked is now blocked for 6 months, and the new IP blocked 24 hours. –MuZemike 18:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

... and Great Siege of Gibraltar semi-protected 1 week. –MuZemike 18:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

RfA

Please, consider the provocation. Not that many people would have held up as well. The way I judge it, is that a candidate who receives many polite negative votes is likely to have something wrong with him. The candidate who receives many virulent attacks shows that at least some of his opposers have something wrong with them. DGG ( talk ) 04:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism?

You've recently protected British Army, citing as a reason "excessive vandalism by 81.136.205.56". While I agree that there was an edit war on that page involving that editor (and others), none of the edits appear to be vandalism, but rather a dispute over the caption of a photo. Can you explain which were vandalism? Momma's Little Helper (talk) 14:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Alexboyo123, 81.136.205.56, and 217.36.224.44 were all the same person. Also, the image is being considered for speedy deletion on Commons. (I also have a feeling that the uploader of the image, Alexboyo123, did not properly license that image.) Finally, you may wish to take a look at User talk:Willdow#afghanistan and a closer look at that image; I don't think that's whomever the uploader/socks say it is. –MuZemike 16:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for helping me learn how to add references.--ZjarriRrethues (talk) 17:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC) [37]

OK, I added some sources to the article. Did I add them correctly?--ZjarriRrethues (talk) 18:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Almost. You forgot an end-quotation mark, which I added in [38]. Otherwise, looks good. –MuZemike 18:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Great!--ZjarriRrethues (talk) 18:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with Angel Munroe

You should see some of the comments she left on my talkpage. Others decided to place this on here for me. Well, if they did then they did by logging into her account as actress1985 is the creator two times over. She admitted somewhere that she is not as smart as some of us Wikipedia page patrollers. Cheers. --Morenooso (talk) 03:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Re:

thanks for the Info update on the nintendo task force but i hardly go on wikipedia anymore so i may not answer back or even see the messages left. :'MJfan9 (talk) 18:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem! –MuZemike 18:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I've Removed my name from the Inactive participants to active participants on the nintendo task force. :'MJfan9 (talk) 18:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Draganparis: false accusations

I disclosed my identity on my user:draganparis page as a hidden comment. Would you please make sure that the editor GK1973 stops insulting me. I hardly insulted him/her once and this was accidental, but I ask him immediately to excuse me. He/she is insulting me permanently. Thank you very much indeed.Draganparis (talk) 23:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

As far as insults go, user Draganparis has insulted too many users and admins too many times. Yet I fail to see the insult in maintaining that his claims of being an "academian" are insubstantiated in Wikipieda and irrelevant in a sockpuppetry case. On the other hand, a simple glimpse through his lines easily show how difficult it can be for anyone to restrain himself from answering in a similar fashion, regarding the quality of his refs and deductions, the academic level of his input, his use of nationalistic sites, his use of lies to promote his POV, his past as a sock puppeteer etc. Yet, I have committed myself to uphold civility rules and stick to the case no matter how great the provocation. This is an admin job after all. I hope you keep an eye on this case.

Thx GK1973 (talk) 13:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

sock decline

Hello. Two thoughts. One -- checkusers are specifically suggested AFTER AfD votes ...so the fact that the AfD is over should not lead to a decline, I would think -- rather, it is suggested as an appropriate time for a checkuser. Second, one of the purported socks has indicated that he wishes to bring the article back, and a sysop has said he will userfy it so he can do so.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The thing is that the "vote stacking", whether by socking or possibly meatpuppetry, did not affect the outcome of the AFD. –MuZemike 01:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It needn't. That's not a criterion. We block socks who engage in vote fraud. Period. Whether they are successful or not. The template says specifically: "Vote fraud, please wait until after vote closes". It doesn't say "... and then only request a checkuser if the purported socks have success". It could have said that if that were policy, but it doesn't -- it simply invites one to make the request once the vote is over. Policy is that socks engaging in vote fraud should be blocked, because that is not behavior that entitles one to continue editing. It does not hinge on their level of success.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Please read the blocking policy – blocks are preventative, not punitive. We don't even know if these accounts are going to even come back. –MuZemike 01:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I've read that, as well as the guideline on sockpuppetry, which indicates that socks should be blocked, and clearly does not hinge--as you suggest above-- on how successful the socks were. Not at all. Simply a blanket statement that they should be blocked. As I said, one of the socks has already indicated that he wishes to bring the article back, and a sysop has said he will userfy it. To take preventative action against continued sockpuppetry, a sock check is IMHO in order as a preventative matter. Nothing suggests that we have to wait until there is a successful violation of the AfD voting for there to be an investigation.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Fine. I'll request a 2nd opinion from another clerk. –MuZemike 01:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Much appreciated.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks again.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw the DRV, so let's make sure. –MuZemike 01:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. It's unclear from your comment who the "couple of the suspected socks support keeping" are. I count three who voted, and others who edited in accord w/notability, and it would be helpful if you indicated on the sock page what you are thinking of. Also, who the"others support deletion" are, and which of the indicated socks fall into neither camp (but come up on the checkuser or edited the article and are from the same location). Also why you "personally don't think socking is going on despite the CU results". Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Zionlove2 (likely in the CU results) favor more towards deletion (the complete opposite to BintAmeen) than the others. This is given that I haven't read between the lines to see if there was any other specific issues I should be aware of. In addition, I do not see anything behavior-wise that incidates that any of them are Rob lockett. I'm sorry, but if you disagree with my view on the case, then find another administrator to look at it; I left the case open so that others can also see. –MuZemike 21:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Before anyone comes to my talk page regarding a recent edit summary/Freudian/keyboard slip

Shut up :) –MuZemike 03:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Right word, wrong language. I believe that you meant six. You typed it in Latin. Hamtechperson 17:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

...or perhaps in Swedish. ;-) --Wine Guy~Talk 19:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Fool! You will go to your Gods and High Priests, posthaste, and atone for your brash madness. And you will stand before them as the souls you have sacrificed heckle and stone you! --an odd name 20:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Peter Damian

Hi MuZemike. You removed my section header at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Peter Damian, which is of course perfectly allright. The trouble is that when someone follows the instructions and template to create a SPI investigation, you are "forced" to add a section header if you want to have an edit summary, since it uses the "new section" functionality of talk pages (i.e. with no edit summary box at the bottom, but a subject/headline box at the top of the edit box). Perhaps, if no section headers are wanted but the template makes it very logical to add one, the template should be changed. Or is it only a problem with continued requests (like the Peter Damian one), and not with first time requests? Anyway, not a huge problem, but perhaps you weren't aware of why people add section headers there. Fram (talk) 07:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned not too long ago at WT:SPI, the problem is how the InputBox extension operates. If there was a way to omit the section header on top, that would be great. –MuZemike 17:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Deleted Michael P. Connolly

MuZemike, you deleted Michael P. Connolly yesterday and I never saw any reply to my contest of it on the Discussion page. Can you help me clear this up? Thanks. MFTU 19:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MFTU (talk • contribs)

I did. I still don't think it asserts any importance. I came up with zilch on any search engine, and there wasn't also anything about this experiment at all. Also, why did you vandalize James Rumsey Technical Institute (see [39] and [40]), just to be curious? –MuZemike 19:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

In regards to SM Supercenter Commonwealth

The entire article is nothing but a directory about itself... Dusti^SPEAK!! 01:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, but it still doesn't fall under G11 in my view. Feel free to PROD of AFD if needed. –MuZemike 01:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take it to AFD, but my question is G11 says " it does nothing but promote some entity or product and would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic". Isn't that what the article is doing? Dusti^SPEAK!! 01:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Hans Karlsson Standards Award & Ken Kennedy Award pages deleted

Hi, I 'd like to re-post the pages created yesterday for Hans Karlsson Standards Award and Ken Kennedy Award. Can you please tell me what should I add and how should I do it in order to stay live??

I need help citing my sources. I cannot make the information added into these pages. Information was added my from non-profit organization. www.computer.org

Thanks, Milagros. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Milagros2001Lstreet (talk • contribs) 14:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

First off I cannot restore the page for you nor allow you to re-post the previous version of that page because the information was directly copypasted from http://www.computer.org/portal/web/awards/kennedy in which the material is under copyright by the IEEE. We do not allow material that is copyrighted that is not licensed under a free license, as Wikipedia (as well as many other similar wikis) is a free content encyclopedia. You will need to rewrite the article but using your own words; as already said on your talk page, you may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

In addition, keep in mind that since it is your organization you're trying to set up an article for, you have a conflict of interest which may present some issues as far as neutral point of view is concerned. If you do wish to re-create the article using my suggestions, I strongly recommend limiting your participation to the article's discussion page.

Finally, we do have a nice tool that may help you create nicely-constructed citations, and that is called refTools; you can enable that script by going to "My preferences" --> "Gadgets" and checking "refTools" under the "Editing gadgets" section. Hope this all helps, –MuZemike 15:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

London 1883 chess tournament again

If you remember, from early Feb. until a few weeks ago several IP addresses were vandalizing London 1883 chess tournament and are suspected sockpuppets. Some of them were blocked. user:24.69.83.237 is now unblocked and vandalized the article again today. Can you block again? Thank you. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 16:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Blocked 2 months. –MuZemike 16:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. The previous discussion was here. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 16:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The previous block on that IP was a 2-week block, and less than an hour after it expired the user vandalized again. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 16:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

RPP Wine Guy

Hi MuZemike, I'm going to be away from home for a possibly extended period of time (several weeks) to help a family member through a medical crisis. I'm leaving later this afternoon, and as this relative lives in BFE, I will be without internet access for much of the time I'm away. So, two things: I won't be able to respond to any queries at the Dr Roots SPI; and would you mind semi-protecting User:Wine Guy and User talk:Wine Guy as I seem to have become the favorite target of Roots et al. Thanks and regards. Wine Guy~Talk 17:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Done and done. Hopefully everything goes well with you. –MuZemike 18:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, thanks, and thanks. All the best; I'll "see" you when I return, hopefully sooner rather than later. Wine Guy~Talk 18:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Please check my work

I know having multiple reports open at once causes confusion, so I did a manual archive. Please take a look and make sure I did it properly.

• Diff for SPI:Brexx
• Diff for SPI:Brexx/Archive.

—Kww(talk) 20:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. –MuZemike 20:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

WF98

I can already guess the response, but I need to try anyway. I wish to take a wikibreak, but I need someone to watch my post while I am gone. This post of course meaning, the abuse filter logs for filter 278 and 306, mainly 306 as the vandal has given up on what 278 is meant to stop. Shirik watches all the relevant filters regarding this case, but they aren't on 24/7. There is also a tool used by us to make reporting wf98 socks easier on the fingers. I am requesting a whitelist for it now to prevent abuse.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Editorial assistance

Thanks for your help at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Human Rights Believer; you are right, of course, that I switched the puppet and the master. I was filing that SPI while in some haste, and you're the second editor helping me out in setting that straight. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 21:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

For helping me fight that spam lawyer, a Fist Bump. Thanks again! --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 22:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Bleargh!!

You deserve a medal for that kind of work. That goes above and beyond the call of duty! Thanks for putting in all the hard work that you do on SPI - Alison ^❤ 03:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MuZemike. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism.
Message added 03:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 03:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, blocked. –MuZemike 03:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 03:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Block evasion?

FYI, an editor (Newuser549 (talk · contribs)) just admitted to block evasion at User talk:Jimbo Wales#Requesting that you review username dispute for bias. Despite being informed by me to review his main account username, he continued to post trollish comments without first acknowledging/resolve his first block. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 03:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

He ended up choosing a different username (which is what we wanted, even though "Newuser" sounds like he's trying to play "victim" IMO), so he is technically not evading his block, as that was what the block message said. He's entitled to "gripe" to Jimbo about it; I doubt he'll get far, though. –MuZemike 03:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Oh good grief! :p Hold on this one, there's the whole farm behind this one - Alison ^❤ 03:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

C'MON MAN! –MuZemike 03:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

• Hahaha... C'MON, you gotta admit I have the nose for these sort of things. *grin* --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 04:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

* it's intersected with another case. This is weird. Need to look into this further - Alison ^❤ 04:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

• Yup, I noticed that too. By his admission, his other account User:ClimateGate is noted as a suspected sock of the banned editor User:ResearchEditor, thus making him a sock as well. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 04:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

• Corrections, he's traced back to Danrz (talk · contribs), see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Danrz. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 08:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Curious SPI overlap. Suspect ISP

Hi, I've noticed a curious overlap between my last two SPIs. 212.106.78.226 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) used by JackNassar (talk · contribs · count) and

• 212.78.230.245 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 216.155.158.166 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 216.244.65.79 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 216.155.158.139 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 216.155.158.190 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 216.155.158.152 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

all used by the JIDF are all located in Milton, Wisconsin according to the information at the top of a WHOIS check but then have information lower down that resolve to other palces geographically. Is there something about the ISP that owns this address that makes them vulnerable to hacking?--Peter cohen (talk) 11:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Krlzh Sockpuppet?

Hi, I see you blocked a user, Krlzh (talk · contribs), last year for sockpuppetry. I noticed some similar language is another user today:

Krlzh: Why deleted the article of the beautiful Dr Chase Meridian. Please rebuild it and put as an main article, put in "lis of batman supporting characters is so stupid. [41]

Cochise6 (talk · contribs): Only a group od stupid nerds redirects this article to the article of List of Batman Supporting Characters. Please undo this foolishness and create again the article of the beautiful dr Chase Meridian. Why merge and redirect?, that's so stupid. [42]

Sorry if I "filed" this in the wrong place, I don't much involvement with sock puppet investigations. Ryan4314 (talk) 15:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

That's fine; Cochise6 (along with Harleytarantina) indefinitely blocked. –MuZemike 15:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

While you're at it, could you also protect Dr. Chase Meridian per Talk:Chase Meridian#Merge? The redirect at Chase Meridian has already been perma-protected due to the tenacious editing by this sockmaster - looks like they chose to get around that protection by editing the version of the article which begins with "Dr.". --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. –MuZemike 16:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

A different strategy, perhaps?

I'm really getting tired of Brexx, and understand why people are reluctant to block the whole UAE. What would you think of blocking account creation from his range, but letting anons edit (I'm pretty sure that's possible)? That way, I can recognize the UAE addresses immediately and undo them, we can semi-protect targets without worrying about his account becoming auto-confirmed, and all existing UAE editors and anons can continue to edit. I just reported the fourth sock of the weekend, and it's only Sunday morning.—Kww(talk) 16:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Question

I finished writing an article and I want to nominate for the front page section of "Did you Know?". I read all the criteria and the guidelines but I still have a question:Is it necessary for the article to have an image or can I nominate it without adding an image to the article?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 17:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

An image isn't required for DYK. –MuZemike 18:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Great! I thought that all fields of the nomination template should be filled.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 18:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my nomination.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 19:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Reeves guy

Greetings -- I just noticed Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Monthandme. Do you know the full history of this? (He probably has made over a thousand sockpuppets by now.) See here (read the deleted page, and particularly note who deleted it) for some background. Also I keep notes on him here (currently deleted; I revive it from time to time). He's had a couple of new ranges, including 66.2.70.0/24; recently I hard-blocked all the ones I knew about. This guy is probably the most relentless, disruptive, and utterly hateful stalker I've met in six years editing, so beware -- and do not respond to e-mails from him unless you have a service that masks IPs in the header. Drop me a note if you want more background on this. It's a nasty one. Cheers, and good luck, Antandrus (talk) 04:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the heads-up. Several CheckUsers from multiple wikis just confirmed a whole bunch of them. –MuZemike 04:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

We seriously need to shut him down on Wikiquote. I left a note on the AN there, but no one has acted on it. Check out his ranting on Kalki's talk page. Sigh. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 05:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you please restore the page User:Sp33dyphil/My resources?

Hello, Could you please restore the page mentioned above, because the page contains links that I use for improving an article. As you might have known, I have been editing the article 'Vietnam Airlines' for more than a month already, and all the external links that I used I paste them onto my User page, at User:Sp33dyphil;and once I have finished using them, I delete all the links. Because you have already deleted the page, it makes working on Wikipedia very hard for me. So please, if you can restore the page, so I could have all the links I need to improve the article 'Vietnam Airlines'. Thank you Sp33dyphil 08:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. I apologize for the error I made on my part. –MuZemike 15:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

this dude will not restore anything, dont waste your time on wikipeedo, check wikipedia-watch.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muzamidiot (talk • contribs) 20:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

...but he did restore it. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Socky, socky. I know who this is. –MuZemike 20:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot-what a relief!

Thanks for restoring the page User:Sp33dyphil/My resources, because otherwise I'll have to surf through the whole internet to finds those useful links. :) Sp33dyphil 05:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
And also, could you delete the page User:Sp33dyphil/My resoureces for me please, since it's an orphan and it's a redirect page? Thank you in advance Sp33dyphil 06:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Please ignore the request made above-the page is already deleted. Sp33dyphil 06:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks, and I'm happy to be obliged :) –MuZemike 06:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hi, You closed this AN/I discussion. I don't see anything that states whether the interaction ban between SRQ and WHL should be removed though. Everyone that commented in that section agrees that it is now moot so could you please update your archive closing and change the log, if you deem that the interaction ban is no longer necessary due to what others have said in this section? I appreciate your time and sorry to bother you about this. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I missed that it was removed by Sarek here. Sorry to have bothered you. Have a good day,--CrohnieGal^Talk 12:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikiprojects

Hey, are all users allowed to add articles in wikiprojects and assess them?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 19:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Provided you know what you're doing, sure. –MuZemike 21:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I read the assessment criteria so I think I won't be doing anything unconstructive.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 21:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

FootballPhill, Cows, Milk, and a quacking IP

82.1.157.16 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is back in action. DuncanHill (talk) 23:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Blocked 1 month. –MuZemike 23:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, see you again in April! DuncanHill (talk) 23:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Al-Akhbar

Thank you for protecting Al-Akhbar (Lebanon), it was getting ridiculous with all the IP vandals. Yazan (talk) 16:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Whatever was going on, I don't think the edits were up to any good. –MuZemike 16:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Re

I've reply about the awards question here. GamerPro64 (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Quiggin/Lambert

Hi. Your notice that this thread was moved to AN is 2nd from the top of the stack on AN/I. Considering that, I put a time stamp on it so it would scroll off in 48 hours, but the 99.xxx IP who brought up the whole situation (and nearly got banned for it) reverted my edit because the notice isn't literally at the top of the stack. Would you care to timestamp it (or not) -- I don't feel like getting into a conflict with this person. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Well you will notice that the "Fraudulent referencing" pseudo-RFC is still ongoing there. –MuZemike 05:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Believe me, it's far-removed now from coming back onto the ANI page anyways. –MuZemike 05:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Okey-doke, your call. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, if he comes back and does a shitload of reverting to put the whole thing back on ANI itself, let me know. I can issue them so-called "editing restrictions" (aka "blocks") on the IP(s). –MuZemike 05:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Will do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Note that the user is engaged heavily against me and has a history of contested manipulation [43][44]. The linked editor is "Ken" as was established in this sockpuppet investigation.[45] My edit was in support of your explicit instructions, and unlike what some may surmise as a possible motivation for the actions of others, it was not a move to "game" another editor into position for a quick knee-cap block/ban style "dispute resolution".99.144.249.249 (talk) 20:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey, 99! You missed that I threw a rock at my brother when I was 10 and chipped his front tooth!

"Heavily engaged" apparently means that I voted in support of motions to ban or topic ban you. Go figure. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

That would only be analogous if you had violently harmed your brother and disfigured him, as per your boast, less than two months ago. Otherwise one is a near current event that occurred here while the other is personal footnote of no relevance to the community. Unless you seek to introduce it into the record as evidence of domineering insociability and bullying. 99.144.249.249 (talk) 23:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Whatever. I've wasted enough energy on you. Enjoy your ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry - PharaohKatt?

I just had a notification appear about a new message; I hardly ever edit and didn't have an account till about ten minutes ago, so - it was a few weeks old and I'm not sure if I'm responding correctly. I was directed to a sockpuppetry investigation page discussing a flurry of wheelchair terminology edits, followed by some disagreement about them on the talk pages. I'm fairly sure the '58.172.137.89' terminology edits under discussion were mine; I'd meant to watch the talk pages for any objections (as I'm not particularly experienced with Wikipedia), but it slipped my mind. I didn't make any of the comments in defence of the terminology change. I have no connection to PharaohKatt, Wawaa, Gennapa or Hexyhex. Any advice would be appreciated. Lizey87 (talk) 16:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Good lists?

One thing I've never been clear about is whether or not lists may be nominated to be good articles, as they can be nominated to be featured. I haven't found any specific criteria for good lists, and the GA criteria don't seem to include or exclude them from consideration. Do you know the answer?--~TPW 17:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Normally not. As it is right now, it's either "List-Class" or "FL-Class". I think the consensus in the past has been against a "Good List" process, but it's been a while since that was discussed from looking at the WT:GA archives. It kind of sucks, as even I have worked on a list in the past (List of NES games) that is pretty good quality but not necessarily FL-level yet. –MuZemike 18:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Undo move

I'm trying to undo myself here [46], but I can't do it. I've tried to undo 2 times already.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 19:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deleted article recreated

Hello - an article you recently speedied here has been recreated. Is the article substantially changed from the first version? The original creator, Censuscapture, created it for promotional purposes, and User:Nylist2010 appears to have picked up where censuscapture left off...--Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 20:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

It's substantially different than the deleted version and looks fine now. –MuZemike 00:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks for checking! --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 14:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like some salt on my user name

I don't know if this is possible or not, but do you think I can have my user name salted? GamerPro64 (talk) 22:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, but be careful with the salt; it may raise your blood pressure. –MuZemike 22:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Your right. Not really healthy for a 15-year old. GamerPro64 (talk) 22:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Userfy

You were the deleting admin on Channel Island Snooker Championship. Please userfy it to User:SMcCandlish/Channel Island Snooker Championship. As multiple parties noted in the AfD, there are in fact reliable third party sources, so the article can be made valid. No one bothered before the close of the AfD, but that doesn't mean the article cannot be resurrected in a proper fashion. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 23:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

There you go. –MuZemike 23:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 23:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

About the closure

I think it's fine you closed the move proposal since it was over a week and not everyone agreed on what to do. However, I still strongly agree that these articles should have no colons in them. What do you think would be the next step, if there is any next step, after the move proposal failed to POSSIBLY get the pages moved? Or should I just give up? Just let me know. Heavydata (talk) 22:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

A sincere thank you from Wikiproject Good Articles

On behalf of Wikiproject Good Articles, I would like to express our gratitude to you for your contributions to the Sweeps process, for which you completed six reviews. Completion of this monstrous task has proven to be a significant accomplishment not only for our project, but for Wikipedia. As a token of our sincere appreciation, please accept this ribbon. Lara 00:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. –MuZemike 18:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Percy Jackson Book 6

Hi,

Can you have a look at the above AfD - I am not quite sure what is/has gone on in the last few edits - I tried to un-ravel the last two edits by Tommader but I don't want it to appear as I am altering a AfD I started. Codf1977 (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

SPA-tags re-added as they were valid, otherwise it looks OK. I'd keep a close watch on his edits as one of them was blanking the AFD, though it may have been accidental. –MuZemike 18:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok just wanted someone else to look at it - could not understand the no contributions for one of the contributors - FeelDaBuzz (talk • contribs) Codf1977 (talk) 21:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I Deleted the SPA-tags as I didnt understand why they were there. Im sorry if they were meant to be there. I didnt do it on purpose.

-Tommader- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommader (talk • contribs) 18:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Normally, AFDs elicit commentary from a cross-section of the community, and that's how we normally determine when a consensus for (or against) deletion has occurred. People (especially administrators) should know when looking at the deletion discussion when users whose sole purpose is to participate in said discussion is going on, normally as a result of off-wiki canvassing. Those are taken into account when, after 7 days of discussion, the closing administrator looks at the case and makes a determination. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to discuss an AfD for more information. Thank you, –MuZemike 18:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Traveler's Dream AfD

Hi. Might you have a quick look at this AfD to assess whether any action is needed. There are several clear WP:SPAs acting, including Karle10 and Bluebell26, as well as lots of canvassing, multiple !votes by individuals, etc. Again, I'm not sure what the appropriate action is, if any, and would appreciate your advice. Thanks. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC).

I have do some other stuff right now, but I have posted it at WP:ANI. There are indeed some serious concerns there. –MuZemike 17:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 March newsletter

We're half way through round two, and everything is running smoothly. Hunter Kahn (submissions) leads overall with 650 points this round, and heads pool B. TonyTheTiger (submissions) currently leads pool C, dubbed the "Group of Death", which has a only a single contestant yet to score this round (the fewest of any group), as well five contestants over 100 points (the most). With a month still to go, as well as 16 wildcard places, everything is still to play for. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Although unrelated to the WikiCup, April sees a Good Article Nominations backlog elimination drive, formulated as a friendly competition with small awards, as the Cup is. Several WikiCup contestants and judges have already signed up, but regular reviewers and those who hope to do more reviewing are more than welcome to join at the drive page. If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) 22:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Having a bit of a day?

70WPM, black, 10 EE. You seem a bit ... well, testy today. Encounter one of those truly byzantine talk-page dictators or something?—Kww(talk) 00:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

74WPM, green, 10.5. Only the best for this talkpage, baby! –MuZemike 00:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

60WPM, midnight green, 6½. That is all. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

GAR

For god's sake. Maybe 60 WPM, yellow and possibly size 10. Anyways, I should have thought of this before but I'm going to Hawaii for spring break until April 12th. I don't know if I can get internet connection at the hotel or not so I may have to put Ninja Gaiden II's GAR on hold until then. GamerPro64 (talk) 05:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

74 WPM, Green, 9. If you can't complete the GAN in time, then you could always ask someone else to do it. Whatever: take your time and have fun. I'm not in any hurry. –MuZemike 07:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The Legendary Axe

Don't know, perhaps 60, 8, dark purple. I've reviewed the article and placed it on hold. Feel free to contact me when fixes are made. J Milburn (talk) 13:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

74WPM, green, 10.5. Wow, that was really quick! Kind of caught me off-guard there. I'll see what I can do. I think most the issues are fixable. –MuZemike 14:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Al Akhbar (Lebanon)

93, blue, 45 (european size) (I want to get into the fun myself). Thank you for protecting the article, and sorry for having missed the rules about your talk page. Yazan (talk) 15:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

74 WPM, green, 13 (English size Not good with European shoe sizes) No problem. –MuZemike 15:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I need a hand

No idea, purple, 11. I've got a bit of a problem at Talk:Napoleon and Tabitha D'umo, Talk:Napoleon and Tabitha D'umo/GA2 and its respective GAR. I failed the article a couple of days ago and now the nominator is not taking too kindly to it and making all sorts of remarks about my "integrity". Could you take a look and try and calm things down before it gets out of hand. I'm out of it. there are 400-odd other articles that would be a better use of my time. Thanks a lot, HJ Mitchell | April Fool! 16:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

74WPM, green, 10. Well, he has requested community reassessment, so it can be left there. I will have to agree that that nominator is taking it a bit personally, but that's just from looking that the discussions and not at the article itself. –MuZemike 16:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

~70WPM, purple, 9. (I'm a size 12 btw!) Thanks, I'm just not sure what to make of the RfC he's filed at the bottom about "a new issue dealing with the reviewer's intergrity". I'd appreciate it if someone who's been at this for longer (like you!) could talk to him and try to calm him down. I won't rise to it, but I have to admit the bit about my integrity stings. Anyway, thanks for your time. HJ Mitchell | April Fool! 16:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

AFD of Topeka, Kansas

I've gone ahead and nom'd the above article, need help. Thanks! --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, that article definitely needs to go ;) –MuZemike 21:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Jayhawk of Justice

Please see here, thanks.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Filiates

It seems that this specific ips come here only to revert disrupting every discussion procces in a variety of articles [[47]][[48]], using hostile edit summaries. No doubt they will find something new to disrupt as their contribution proves.Alexikoua (talk) 00:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I saw one autoconfirmed account in there, Kushtrim123 (talk · contribs). Now that I'm looking at that account more in-depth, he seems to fit the description of the run-of-the-mill nationalistic edit-warrior. That could be very well blockable, but since I already full-protected the article, it may be better to leave it to another admin. –MuZemike 00:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

After looking at the contribs, I've blocked Kushtrim123 1 week and lowered the protection to semi, set to expire the same 3 days from now. –MuZemike 00:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Brantfordcan‎

Hi. I don't know if you remember this, but you've blocked User:Blurall etc. as socks of the highly disruptive User:Dacodava (here). Well, it seems he's back, as User:Brantfordcan‎ (same editing interests, even the same article edited in the exact same vein). I would have gone with a formal request for sock investigation, but for the love of me I can't figure out how you're supposed to file that. If it's not to much to ask, please advise on what I should do next: Brantfordcan‎ is making numerous insidious and ungrammatical edits, and I think it's imperative to figure out soon whether he does them as a noob or as a saboteur. Regards, Dahn (talk) 01:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Btw: the same goes for this account (see here - the most transparent case of sockpuppetry ever). Dahn (talk) 01:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure enough, ther's another (should we consider the choice of name a bad omen?) Dahn (talk) 02:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't get back to you earlier (I was out of town the past 36 hours). Looks like we may need a checkuser here to see if other socks are lying and possibly to hardblock the underlying IP(s) behind these socks. I'll look into the contribs right now and see if they need to be blocked. –MuZemike 18:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dacodava; I've already endorsed for CheckUser attention for you. If you have any other evidence, please post it there. –MuZemike 18:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi again: this message here is to thank you, and to offer my apologies at seeming frantic in my earlier posts - I had just picked up the trail, and was realizing that it was a choice between learning the trick very fast or letting it simmer down to the other side of Easter (I knew I myself was going to be mostly wiki-inactive during the actual holiday). I thought the best thing was to let a Dacodava-savvy admin know of this, just in case there was something you could do about it before I got a chance to revisit the matter. You did, and I'm grateful for it: if anything, it is I who needed to apologize. Dahn (talk) 09:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

User:190fordhouse

Guess what? User: 190fordhouse back and is using the profile of J-Dizzley to edit articles in the same manner. http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/J-Dizzley95. Here is some other proof of how I recognized the name. User: JaeDizzley14. This user is a severe sock puppeteer. Please respond as soon as you can.Carmaker1 (talk) 21:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Blocked and tagged. –MuZemike 21:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I'll keep you posted if another profile is created.Carmaker1 (talk) 21:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

User:63.215.29.202

Hey. I noticed you made 63.215.29.202's block anon. only. Given the history of abusive socking and the static nature of the IP, wouldn't a hard block be the way to go? Prolog (talk) 02:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Two Albanians blocked

Hello there! I saw that two new Albanian editors were blocked indefinitely as a result of this investigation. I was wondering if the checkuser was used at all. User:Athenean has filed many SPI cases, but some of them have come out to be untrue (see this accusation for example). Please understand the reason behind which I am writing to you: I wouldn't want these users to be clean and falsely accused. --sulmues talk contributions 13:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The editing patterns by those two editors clearly matched the patterns Dodona and his socks used. In such cases, CheckUser is not necessary. –MuZemike 15:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand. Thank you! --sulmues talk contributions 18:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Presidency of USG review

Thanks for reviewing. I will try to make any change suggestions you make. In the Brooks-Baxter war section you mentioned "This time, Grant did not send in troops,". From what I know about the Brooks-Baxter war, Grant never sent in Federal troops, just the Proclamation. There were Federal troops already stationed there to enforce Civil Rights legislation, however, not enough to stop the rebellion. {Cmguy777 (talk) 01:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)}

OK, thanks for letting me know. I tried to reword there to make more sense. Sorry if I inadvertently changed the facts. –MuZemike 01:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I have to check to find out how many troops Col. Rose had, if any. Rose was a Federal officer.{Cmguy777 (talk) 01:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)}

Colonel Thomas E. Rose was in charge of the Federal Arsenal and the Sixth Regiment. He attempted to restore order, but was outnumbered. Brooks Baxter War

I am going through the GA edits. I am also going through the GA edits for the Ulysses S. Grant article. It may take me longer to make changes. {Cmguy777 (talk) 01:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)}

Take your time, it's a very large article. –MuZemike 02:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The WPVG Newsletter (Q1 2010)

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 3, No. 1 — 1st Quarter, 2010
Previous issue | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q1 2010, the project has:

• 131 Featured Articles
• 36 Featured Lists
• 12 Featured Topics

• 36 A-Class Articles
• 384 Good Articles
• 5 Good Topics

---

Content

• Changes to Featured and Good content
• News items and announcements

• Feature: VG Task forces
• Featured editor: Sabre

---

Project Navigation

• VG Project Main pages

  • Main project – talk
  • Project category – talk
  • Portal – talk

  VG Project Departments

  • Assessment – talk
  • Cleanup – talk
  • Peer review – talk

   

  • Reference library – talk
  • Newsletter – talk
  • Video game images – talk

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

• Newsletter delivery by xenobot 17:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

User TH43 and more IPs

User:TH43 is back on two new IPs: 174.91.250.118 and 174.91.249.49. I tried to give them a chance, but she hasn't paid me a bit of attention in this world. Well, if you count the low blow to me being a male... —Mike Allen 23:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

174.91.240.0/20 rangeblocked again, this time for 2 months. –MuZemike 23:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

re 200.26.152.211

Just a thought... but shouldn't the clumsy attempt at impersonation be factored in? - J Greb (talk) 02:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. Why don't we ask ThuranX about that ;) –MuZemike 03:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

SPI Delays

Hi,

Just wondering when someone might get to look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Majorphase ?

Thanks

Codf1977 (talk) 10:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Vandal alert

I don't know if you can block ranges, but remember our IP-hopping Indonesia vandal friend who delibrately inserts misinformation by ridiculously connecting CBS, Digimon, and Resident Evil articles without any source to back up his claims? He has returned has used the following addresses within the 114.59.0.0/16 range. The range was blocked before, but after the block expired, the vandal began doing his modus operandi again by using the following addresses in just the past two days:

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

He also used the following addresses, leading to the previous blocks.

• 114.59.196.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 114.59.191.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 114.59.177.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 114.59.207.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 114.59.100.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I hope that you take action ASAP before he strikes again using another address from within the range. Thank you. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 10:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Never mind. Range blocked for 31 hours. But you will be among the first ones to know once he strikes again in the range, or any other address. Thanks in advance. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 11:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Polistes sp wasp.jpg

Hi You uploaded the picture File:Polistes sp wasp.jpg from commons to wikipedia for today's FP. You forgot to add the license tags to the file page. I hope this does not happen again in the future. Cheers --Muhammad(talk) 15:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that. It was brought to my attention yesterday evening that Today's Featured Picture (on Commons) was not protected. Hence, I had to upload the picture from Commons here and full-protect it so that nobody messes with the image (i.e. change it to Goatse or something else vile). Thank you, –MuZemike 16:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I will also note that it will be deleted from Wikipedia (it will obviously stay on Commons) in about 8 hours time. –MuZemike 16:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem for this one, I understand. I would suggest copying the license template from commons in the future since the picture receives lots of attention and many would believe it is in the public domain and use the image without the necessary conditions. --Muhammad(talk) 17:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Second opinion

Excuse me MuZe. I need a second opinion on if this article in my sandbox is notable for wikispace, as well as being on DYK. GamerPro64 (talk) 02:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

You're going to need from coverage from reliable secondary sources so that notability is established there. –MuZemike 19:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Teme Sejko

Thanks for your advice regarding this [49]--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 18:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Raymond Francis unblock

While I agree that Raymond Francis (talk · contribs) obviously doesn't plan to edit collegially at this point, the indef block was placed for the legal threat, which I _think_ he has withdrawn (hard to be absolutely sure from the language he used). Should we switch the block to a timed one, in the hopes that a clue will drop into place during the block period? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

If he realizes that such stuff like his last unblock request is unacceptable on Wikipedia, then that's fine. –MuZemike 22:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Also see [50]. –MuZemike 22:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey guys, don't you both agree that you could be wrong yourselfs, I mean he was only banned for making legal threats, it seems like I think you both are being a tad like unkind to the guy, so you both should stop this, this is a form of bullying, and I feel you both should be punished as well as this behaviour is not welcomed either

I therefore must ask other administrators to appeal against this and santion the both of you to understand how it feels to be in that position

--Wiki Chief Justice (talk) 22:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Who are you? –MuZemike 22:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I guess that's irrelevant now. --an odd name 22:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup submission

Erm, looks like it's formatted ok. The bot should pick it up- give it a day or two then post on the talk page, see if people can spot what's up- worst case scenario we will take it into account manually at the end. J Milburn (talk) 10:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Another sock of Qaqwewew?

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

Fallschirmjäger 12:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

J-Dizzley/190fordhouse/995star

User: J-Dizzley14 has logged in again as an [51] and is making the same troublesome changes as a whole by not including explanations nor sources. When you have time please investigate. Thanks.Carmaker1 (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

IP hardblocked for 1 week. –MuZemike 17:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

rollback

I saw that you grant rollback to people. Would you grant me rollback? I have read http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Rollback_feature and promise to abide by the provisions described.

I promise to: 1. Not use rollback in a controversial way, only in cases of vandalism, bad editing, etc.
2. To use rollback very sparingly and cautiously between now and 1 July 2010, giving me a 3 month learning period.
3. Agreeing that I will pay a fine of €100 to Wikipedia if I use rollback in an abusive way between now and 1 July 2010.
Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 17:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

You look good for it. Please remember that rollback is only to be used for reverting clear vandalism and nonsense. –MuZemike 18:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I will use it wisely and not disappoint you. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

BLOCKED

Ahem, it's about Rademire2 (talk · contribs)... I'm sorry for the attention grabbing header but could you block his first account as well? → Rademire (talk · contribs) ← Cheers~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 19:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's going to matter much, but OK. –MuZemike 20:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Much appreciated. And now, we will return you to our regular programming per point #12 of WP:OWB. Cheers~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 20:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Just as a note, another editor with a similar editing pattern has suddenly requested unblock after 3 months of inactivity, as they were caught under the autoblock which this placed. You may want to check it out at User talk:Bro5990 incase there is potential sockpuppetry afoot here, as the autoblock will eventually expire. Regards, --Taelus (talk) 20:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• oh dear... another hornet's nest again! Luckily, you blocked his first account and he had nothing left but his army of socks... guess my hunch was correct after all. :) --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 20:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that, in which a CheckUser made a check shortly afterwards. –MuZemike 21:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

:::Thanks! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦-11-1985♪♫™} 22:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)←←← Impostor alert~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 06:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Hello Mike, this is to inform you that the above-mentioned → Dave-11-1985 (talk · contribs) ← is currently imposing as me and had caused some bits of mischief by reverting some of my edits just for the fun/sake of it. Cheers and regards. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 06:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Heh, I wouldn't have readily noticed. –MuZemike 06:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Could you please nuke it? I don't think I quite like the idea of an impostor running around town trying pass himself off as me. BTW, is he related to Rademire? Cheers and regards. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 06:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked the account in the meantime. I've pinged a CheckUser to see who that account belongs to. –MuZemike 06:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks, let me know if the above has anything to do with this guy Sukarnobhumibol (talk · contribs), he's the last one who had some arguments with me. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 07:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Majorphase

Hi,

Now that the SPI on the above user is delt with, is it possible to remove from my user page this edit, which was blantent vandalism and lead to this good faith edit sum on a AfD ? I do not mind if the whole page is deleted per WP:CSD#G7 or WP:CSD#U1 or just the offending edit is removed. Thanks Codf1977 (talk) 21:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

There you go, did a poor man's oversight. –MuZemike 21:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, much appreciated. Codf1977 (talk) 21:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

GA Backlog Elimination Drive Stats

Hi. First, I want to thank you for helping put on the backlog drive. It has inspired me to organize a similar drive with the Guild of Copy Editors as they have an 8000 article backlog for copyediting. I've cloned the page, but I don't know how to set up the statistics reporting that you did, which is fantastic, by the way. Can you tell me how to go about doing that? Thanks! ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 17:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Dingding! Notice me! Notice me! ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 13:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Most of the statistics schemes were already set up from last year's GAN backlog elimination drive when I started it, so I actually didn't have to do much. But anyways, look at {{GAN changes}}, which is the template used for tracking the number of nominations and their changes over time. Keep in mind that these reports are generated from Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Report which is bot-generated. I don't know the copyeditors' guild is set up, but it may be possible that you may need someone to code a bot to track statistics (to give you a fair warning). As far as graphs are concerned, it's whatever software is used to generate such graphs like with File:GanDrive.png, and there are many out there. –MuZemike 15:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 15:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Photography in Nanaimo

Instead of changing the deletion criterion to something that makes more sense, you just delete the db tag altogether and leave this advertising sitting there? Woogee (talk) 21:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not going to read minds when somebody places the wrong CSD tag on it. It was tagged as G2; it was not a test page, plain and simple. There is a subtle difference between G2 and G11, and I'm not going to skim through each and every CSD criteria for a reason to delete. Regards, –MuZemike 00:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Mathemagician57721 socks

Hey. User:TheFarix indicated that you might want to know about Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mathemagician57721 as you had instituted some range blocks against this guy in the past (the Pokemon vandal) that may have expired? He surfaced again yesterday trying to "frame" Farix with a similarly named sock account, User:TehFarix and redirecting his user pages to Farix's real pages before beginning his vandalism again. As soon as the name was called out, he switched to back to an IP. Both are blocked, but with his history, I've put in a CU request and wanted to give you a heads up on it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 12:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Brexx

Lil-unique1 decided to take the Brexx problem to a wider community at WP:ANI#Long term sock puppet and ducker.. I'm not sure it was necessary, but not sure it's a bad idea either. You may wish to participate.—Kww(talk) 20:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Why not? We did that to JI Hawkins. On the upside, we may very well need more people to be on the lookout for his socks. –MuZemike 20:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

No major issue with a global discussion. Not sure whether it belong on AN or ANI, though. Anyway, you're notified, which was my goal.—Kww(talk) 20:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

...for the quick block. Blantant personal attacks aren't really User:ResearchEditor's style, I wonder if it might be User talk:Epididymus10 - who also needs to be blocked, and who I just warned - using a sock. Meh. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I also doubt that was ResearchEditor. He wouldn't be that stupid (or would he?). –MuZemike 20:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

His/her personal tastes doesn't run towards profanity, and much as I may annoy him/her, s/he's never descended to blatant personal attacks and vandalism. Perhaps it's a new level of personal growth... WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your help getting the threatening the President article to "good article" status

		The Good Article Reviewer's Barnstar
		I appreciate your patience and help during the GA Review process. Wikipedia is well-served by your thorough approach, diligence, and initiative in lending a hand. Cheers, Tisane (talk) 07:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Unofficial second opinion on Super Mario World?

Hey MuZemike; although I'm not a new reviewer, the GA Backlog Elimination Drive says that if you want a second opinion on a review you've done, you can ask one of the co-ordinators, and since you're part of WP:VG, here I am. I passed Super Mario World today but, while reviewing Super Mario Bros. 2 (which I failed), I saw that it had problems that were present in SMW, but to a lesser degree, and now I'm second guessing my review/pass. I was wondering if you could take a quick look over World and let me know what you think? My biggest worry is the lack of contemporary reviews for what was obviously an important/major game at the time. Thanks. Canadian Paul 04:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I can look at it when I get a chance. I'm currently on the road, but I can definitely look at sometime this weekend. –MuZemike 15:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem, it's not a hugely pressing issue. Thanks! Canadian Paul 22:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant

Yes. I can hold edits. {Cmguy777 (talk) 19:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)}

Is there anything else needed to get the GA? There may be two more scandals coming out, but I need more information. Thanks for all you help and editing.(Cmguy777 (talk) 20:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC))

Actually, a few more issues I've noticed. I'll bring them up on the GA nomination page. –MuZemike 20:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I am unfamiliar with the "sandbox", but I appreciate all the work you have done on the article. {Cmguy777 (talk) 21:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)}

I separated the Newspaper articles in the references. How can the Indian policy be more neutral? I was going to add the Sioux war and explain the slaughter of buffalo. They are related in the fact that the buffulo were killed for profit and to keep the Indians from their vital food supply. Allot of it had to do with Sheridan. <Cmguy777 (talk) 20:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)>

I can think of two options. First, you could simply add to the end of the article regarding his actions of the Sioux war and the buffalo and criticisms thereof. Second, you could also make a subsection of that section and say the same thing. If Philip Sheridan was involved, then that certainly should be mentioned.

Obviously what is in there right now shows the good about Grant's Indian policy. What needs to be added is the bad about his policy to balance that out. –MuZemike 21:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. That sounds good. Phil Sheridan was involved with the Red River War. Grant had about 5 generals who got along with the Native Americans. Sheridan and Sherman were often at odds with the President over his Native American policy. Sheridan in particular wanted to kill the buffalo to keep the Native Americans on the Reservations. In a sense, he went around Grant's peace policy, by killing the food supply. Sheridan, who protected African Americans, had no sympathy for Native Americans. Since Sheridan and Sherman were Grant's buddies, Grant was reluctant to question them. Sadly, for the buffalo, I am not sure there were any protests over their killing at the that time. I have to look that up. They are extremely important issues and should be in the Article. Grant, who was suppose to love animals, shockingly let them almost be completely slaughtered. The Native American segment should be longer do to the complicated policies and misunderstandings. I believe Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee by Dee Brown as a source can balance the segment. I have the book and find out more about the Grant era. Smith tends to mention all the good stuff. {Cmguy777 (talk) 21:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)}

Segment added. Feel free to edit or improve. I combined the buffalo slaughter and Red River War in one segment. {Cmguy777 (talk) 01:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)}

Has the neutrality issue on the Native Americans and buffalo slaughter been met? {Cmguy777 (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)}

I added a segment on the corruption in the Department of Indian Affairs and a segment that combined the Red River War and the buffalo slaughter. Can you review these changes? {Cmguy777 (talk) 16:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)}

Changes have been made to the Article. Corruption in the Department of Indian affairs under Secretary Columbus Delano has been mentioned in addition to the Buffulo Hunting. Have you looked at the changes yet? {Cmguy777 (talk) 22:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)}

GA Review for Invincible (Michael Jackson album)

Hey, I think I've corrected all of the problem's you listed with the article in it's GA review, could you check the article to see if you have anymore concerns? Thanks, Crystal Clear x3 00:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I think I've corrected the remaining problem's with the article in it's GA review, could you check the article to see if your concern's have been addressed? Thanks, Crystal Clear x3 20:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

GA review of Skinny Puppy

I wasn't too sure about the article passing, as I hadn't actually worked on it myself. I've been going through B articles for WikiProject Industrial, trying to find potential GAs, and it looked decent when I gave it a quick skimming. But yes, looking at it more closely, I see it's still missing a lot more references than I'd realized. Thanks for the tips though! Torchiest (talk | contribs) 23:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Return of 190fordhouse sockpuppet

Looks like 204.2.37.158 is back from the one month block you gave them in February to once again change dates and genres of singers/albums/songs without edit summaries or reliable sources. Aspects (talk) 16:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Blocked 3 months. –MuZemike 17:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks. Sorry. Have been distracted by a hyperactive AN/I. Tx for picking it up. Will respond w/in 24 hours. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring IP

Hi, this IP you recently blocked for edit warring has returned and is readding the list of unsourced, unnotable people to St Anne's High School. Could you please keep an eye on it? Thanks, Aiken ♫ 15:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Here is a belated thank you for blocking the troublesome editor from making unexplained changes.  — [Unsigned comment added by Carmaker1 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC).]

Oops?

lol --King Öomie 17:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Shut up. Just, shut up. ;) –MuZemike 17:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I do that all the time... clicking around someone's userpage and realize I've clicked the wrong link and am looking at MY OWN contribs :P --King Öomie 18:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Ha! At least you didn't misspell "six" again... :P Auntie E. (talk) 18:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• lol~! Guess we'll spare Mike the minnow for now but let me just state this... lately, there has been a couple of Admins blocking themselves or another Admin by mistake. Ahhh... it's nice to know that we are humans after all. Cheers~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 20:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Woo hoo hoo. Thx for the lulz, MuZemike!  Chzz  ►  17:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Honeypot

For the moment this was a useful honeypot for catching new socks: they were attacking that page rather than the encyclopedia. Now they'll go back to the encyclopedia... ⇦REDVƎRS⇨ 17:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

hmm..

I've been playing around with the status option from your userpage but I can't get it to work. :( How do you get the little blue button at the top? --Tommy²⁰¹⁰ 19:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Post {{Statustop|link=User:Username/Status}} on top of your userpage(s) (and create that page; it can be blank for now) and make sure you add the following to your skin's JavaScript page (either monobook.js or whichever skin you're using):

importScript('User:Xenocidic/statusChanger2.js');

Don't forget to bypass your server's cache when you're done. –MuZemike 19:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Got it working, thank you :) Tommy²⁰¹⁰ 01:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Concerning the closure

[52]An admin reviewed it at the ani and said that it looks potentially duckish: [53]

I specifically said that there had already been a CU, and that the confirmation was needed through the behaviour. So far no admin has explained at the SPI how its possible that the NT account contacted ACs sock. Which lead me to believe that no admin at the SPI has looked through the evidence. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

That case was open for over three weeks, which tells me that nobody is willing to look at or will likely look at it anytime in the near future. I was going on the CU ran last year which failed to establish any connection between the two accounts. –MuZemike 20:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

What has happened here is not right at all, Would it be alright if I make an appeal to an admin to go through the evidence? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, but I don't like the idea of having SPI cases sit indefinitely and then someone complains when somebody closes it because nobody looks at it. That's why all admins should be competent in the field of sock puppetry and not only SPI clerks or those regular admins over at SPI.</rant> –MuZemike 20:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what to do

I recently noticed an edit war going on at the Ottoman Empire article. Upon viewing the sentences in question and the references, I noticed that the content of these sentences was NOT supported by the references. I therefore, changed the sentences to what the reference stated. Apparently, Iceman rides your tail[54] thought that "Hovannisian is an Armenian, i.e. not a neutral source. The Ottoman Empire did not contain an administrative region called "Armenia", "Ottoman Armenia" or "Western Armenia".", yet he leaves the Hovannisian references which did not support,

• "the Armenians began pressing the Ottoman government for greater autonomy after the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878 and the Congress of Berlin in 1878.--ref-- Hovanissian, Richard G. The Armenian People From Ancient to Modern Times, Volume II, pp. 203–238
• A number of Armenian uprisings and attacks took place in the cities of Anatolia, .... -- unsourced

After his reversion I tagged the section with WP:OR and specifically tagged the sentences in question, after stating why on the talk page. Do you have any suggestions? Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

User blocked 3 days for edit warring; those IPs were clearly his and for the sole purpose to edit war on the Ottoman Empire article. –MuZemike 20:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Help in Resolving a matter

Hello I was referred to you by a friend who said you can help resolve a matter. It's in regards to a section recently added to the Deadliest Warrior article, this new section is titled Mistakes and Inconsitency. I don't think it fits wiki standards since it only highlights 2 minor issues and uses original research. I know other articles have such sections but most of those articles are either less frequented, have that section removed later or are properly sourced. Rather than start a full fledged edit war by just deleting it I started a discussion on the talk page but that went nowhere so I was hoping to bring an admin to resolve the issue and look at the section so there can be a peaceful resolution, thank you. Deus257 (talk) 20:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I gave a 3rd opinion on the talk page. In the future, Wikipedia:Third opinion is where you should go as far as dispute resolution is concerned. Admins, in theory, are supposed to be like any other editor as far as disputes are concerned and no more additional "binding power" in their opinions on dispute issues. –MuZemike 21:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok thanks. Deus257 (talk) 21:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Second look

[55]: This case really is not a content dispute. A closer look at the IP contributions show that they are exactly the same as those of Special:Contributions/Pashko 2 from yesterday, and that in most cases they are removing any Russian language material they can find without any discussion or rationale. A quick perusal at Talk:Kharkiv will confirm that the editor is acting against a long-established consensus, and against our policies, and is very close to three reverts over a very large number of articles. I would be grateful if you could take a second, closer look at this case. Best, Knepflerle (talk) 20:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

It does look like edit warring, now that I've taken a second look at it. I've warned the user for edit warring. Feel free to let me know or take it to WP:AN3 if he starts up again (the IP's been idle for about an hour, now). –MuZemike 21:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, it's appreciated. Knepflerle (talk) 21:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: Vandalism?

That is the doing of indef blocked and serial sockpuppeter User:BenH. WEMT is located in Tennessee, so BenH adds the Category:Television stations in Virginia category. That is where you can tell it is a BenH edit. Anything even remotely looking liek BenH is normally reverted on sight. Also adding "Channel 39" to the website link is unnecessary. He did the same thing with the WJHL-TV page as well, which I Warn2'd him as WJHL goes by the branding "NewsChannel 11 Connects" and is not located in Virginia, per the addition of this Category:Television stations in Virginia category again. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)