User talk:MuZemike/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Maniac Mansion NP comic

MuZemike- I seem to remember that Nintendo Power had a Nester and Maniac Mansion one-shot comic. Do you have the citation info for it? I think it'd be good to mention in the "Impact and legacy" section with the other pop culture content. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC))

The Fox and the Hound

The problem with pending changes protection is that will only work up to a certain point... HalfShadow 21:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

"Enemy of the Daleks"

That's a user claiming to be an alternate account of the user ChildofMidnight, who is currently serving a 1-year suspension. I suspect it's an impostor trying to get CoM into further trouble. But I wonder if there's any realistic possibility of doing an SPI, given the passage of time? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, regarding these investigations Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ChildofMidnight/Archive, as I can see there is no confirmation via cheackuser , there is currently only one user in the confirmed section User:Electroshoxcure and there is no checkuser confirmation for that claim - so - the checkuser confirmed template on the users userpage User:ChildofMidnight is incorrect and requires amending, I would appreciate your assessment of this statement, and if there is some checkuser confirmation that I am missing please point me in the right direction, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 15:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Enemy of the Daleks is  Confirmed as banned user Editor XXV (talk · contribs). –MuZemike 15:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - Are there any confirmed by checkuser sockpuppets of CoM? Off2riorob (talk) 15:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Not that I can see. As far as I am concerned, CoM and FSN have been long  Stale. This is clearly another banned user who is jerking us around. –MuZemike 15:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Aha, so it was Editor XXV. What about Progrockmusician (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and/or 70.33.19.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? Are either of them also XXV? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

note - I am not only talking about todays case but all the time in the last year and all the cases on the archived investigation page. So currently the template on CoMs userpage asserts that checkuser confirmed , which is not really correct, then which is the correct template for the User:ChildofMidnight page , suspected sock template? Off2riorob (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The CU template was added by Prolog here, so I cannot tell you whether or not CU confirmed anything. All I know is that CoM is still banned by ArbCom. –MuZemike 15:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks I have asked him to verify, although he is not a checkuser as I can see. Do you agree with me that there is no checkuser confirmation stated on this archived page Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ChildofMidnight/Archive ? Off2riorob (talk) 16:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

To my knowledge, I would agree. However, keep in mind that Freakshownerd (talk · contribs) and socks are suspected to be CoM. –MuZemike 16:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

BLP, ethnicity, gender

Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Include "ethnicity, gender," to match all other guidelines

Some say source requirements for ethnicity and gender of WP:EGRS don't apply to WP:BLP living persons, simply because the two words aren't in the policy. (Apparently, they think it should only apply to dead people.) I see that you have participated on this topic at the Village Pump.

They also are trying to remove the notability, relevance, and self-identification criteria at WT:EGRS, but that's another fight for another day, I'm simply too busy to watch two fronts at the same time.

We're on the 6th day. Traditionally, these polls go for 7; unless there's no obvious consensus, when we go for an additional 7 days.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

IP Exempt

Hi, I would like to know why my privilege of being IP block exempt was taken away from me ? Nefirious (talk) 05:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

As said in the rationale, you are no longer caught in any open proxy block, hence IPBE is no longer necessary. –MuZemike 16:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Would you please explain to me what it really means? Have I been demoted now since I dont have an IP block exempt tag on me ? I am srroy I am little naive.

Kid Klown in Crazy Chase

Could you supply me with the information from the 10/01/94 issue of Nintendo Power for it? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, nevermind; you don't have the issue. 'Tis a shame! - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I might be able to eventually get a copy, but I'm too far away to get one right now. Perhaps in a week I might be able to get my later copies of NP. –MuZemike 01:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I Kinda Figured

But I will call you "Mike" :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 01:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

ILT again

There's a merge discussion going on here for an article brought to GA by an ITL sock. I think merging is a terrible idea until the article is checked for copyvio and completely scrubbed. Also the images should probably be stripped. Just wanted you to know. I won't be around much in the next few days, but will keep an eye on it and help if I have time when I'm back to editing. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 06:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

ILT, actually, "ItsLassieTime". Pretty obvious that "PrestoPrestoPresto" is a sock. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks BB for pointing out the typo. Yes, Presto is certainly a sock, but that doesn't change the problems with the article ILT created. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Lassie was well-known for that kind of thing, and anything it worked on needs to be reviewed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I've spent months working on their articles, scrubbing. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we have another one: [1]. I'm getting very tired of keeping up with this and being chastised for it. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk)

Who's chastising you, besides the sock itself? If it's somebody else, let me know, and I'll go do a little bit of "chastising" back. 0:) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

And this user also needs to be looked at too. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Dover has been indefinitely blocked by Bsadowski1, and it is  Confirmed as ILT, and all those edits have been reverted; HistoryAAI seems  Unrelated. Moreover, there is no reason to feel "chastised" because you are doing the right, and this is a banned user we're dealing with. –MuZemike 16:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I hadn't looked at their contribs when they left a message chastising me on how the pages should be scrubbed - which understandably left me a little annoyed. Once I saw their contribs I realized it was the banned sock who was telling me how to clean their plagiarized articles. I'll take the message off my page. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

GAN Review for May Revolution

Hello. I came to ask for just a little assistance. I just started reviewing GA nominations recently and have done mostly smaller-scale articles, nothing too difficult. However, I am now reviewing May Revolution and just want to see if you can look at what I have done so far and see if it all checks out. I really am wondering whether and article can be quick-failed for being too long, I made notes about that on the review page. Also I think I'm on the right track with my comments about references but just want to make sure. This review has challenged me quite a bit more than previous ones. Any help you can provide would be greatly appreciated. Have a great day! P.S. Great job for your involvement in getting the GAN backlog elimination drive organized. •Felix• ^T 21:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I can maybe get to it sometime later this week or next week, failing that. –MuZemike 21:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks so much! •Felix• ^T 21:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Does this kind of thing warrant a sock-drawer check?

Hi. 'Tis the edit summary to which I refer. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that it is, as he does also create sleepers when he IP-hops, which CU will pick up. Unfortunately, what I don't have is sufficient time to sit down and go through it as well as the others in the previous SPI case. I don't know if an edit filter or some sort of IRC-tracking bot would help, but his patterns on the Sandbox is bloody obvious. –MuZemike 15:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. :) Is he a known offender? He's only temporarily blocked; is he evading something? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a clue. –MuZemike 18:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I thought from your note that his patterns were obvious that you meant you recognized him. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Question

Do you think you could do a peer review on the Frank Buckles article? I have it at PR but it is really backlogged. If so, please let me know. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 15:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

If I get around to it, but I'm afraid it may not be this weekend (as I still also have a raincheck on a GA review I'm double-checking for another person). –MuZemike 15:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

No worries, I asked a couple other people, so it is cool. :) Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 15:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Got another question for ya. I have checked DYK Check on the Frank Buckles‎ since I started updating it (along with other editors) and it says the article has never reached 5x. With the work put into this, I find that hard to believe. Is there another tool you could use to give a look-see if this is DYK quality? - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 16:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

User:ResidentAnthropologist has taken up the PR cause. Thanks though. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 18:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Rosanacurso

Hi, thanks so much for doing the CU on this. There is at least one new one.

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/Macseconite

I suspect this one too, although he hasn't actually done anything wrong.

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/Marialcazar

Do you have any advice on what to do with additional SPs? Do I reactivate the case? (How?) They do not seem interested at AIV in matters like this.

Logical Cowboy (talk) 20:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Just let me know here if more pop up. –MuZemike 12:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I have added about 8 more since HelloAnnyong did her/his user blocking, so I suppose that at least those 8 could be blocked plus the other ones now up at SPI. Any other ideas about what to do? This seems to keep on popping up, and it is expanding to other talk pages, like for Belgium now. Do you think it could be some strange school assignment, like for an English language school in Spain? Just thinking.... Logical Cowboy (talk) 19:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll block them right now, but I can't check them at the moment for sleepers. –MuZemike 19:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thanks again for all your help. Were all of these from the same IP? I am still trying to figure out whether this is one person or a bunch of people. What do you think? Logical Cowboy (talk) 16:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I recommend you read the wardriving article, because this is what this person is doing. –MuZemike 16:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

User:NinaGreen

I have noticed the template you added this morning to the User:NinaGreen page, about sockpuppetry. Could the sockpuppets please be identified? Supposing there are any, they should ideally be linked from the notice you added. Moonraker2 (talk) 12:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

My mistake, two are linked. Are the any "suspected sockpuppets", please? Moonraker2 (talk) 12:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

If you click the "confirmed socks" link on the sock template on NinaGreen's userpage, you will be taken to Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of NinaGreen, where the socks are listed. It was also logged by User:Versageek (who initially confirmed the socks) on the main ArbCom case page Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions.

Otherwise, that is it for right now. –MuZemike 12:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I have been looking at the edits of the two "confirmed socks". One has only one edit, which was the creation of a user page. The other has a much higher number of edits which do not appear to be abusive, or at least not in any way that I can see. As neither of them overlaps in time with the use of the NinaGreen account, I do not understand how Checkuser can confirm that they are the same person. Even if Turquoise Mountain has been operating from a particular computer, surely it could be a different person? Moonraker2 (talk) 12:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

All three operated from the same IP address (which does not look like a public IP), same computer settings, and editing the same articles. NinaGreen was banned by ArbCom on 16 February 2011; TurquoiseMountain was created three days later, on 19 February 2011, so there is a justifiable cause that the accounts were created to evade the ban. Unless NinaGreen recruited two other people to edit from NinaGreen's computer on her behalf after her ban, I'm afraid I have to agree with Versageek's CU findings as well as my verification of said findings that they are the same person. Moreover, abusive or not, NinaGreen is banned by ArbCom; the community does not reserve the prerogative to set aside such a ban. If you feel you still disagree, please contact Versageek and, failing that, ArbCom regarding your claim of innocence on the part of User:TurquoiseMountain and User:NotRecommended. –MuZemike 20:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I think perhaps I shall. I do not have any authority to make a "claim of innocence" for Nina Green, but as you must know the Anglo-Saxon common law tradition is that when someone is accused of some wrongdoing they are presumed innocent until proved guilty, while natural justice requires that the person concerned should have the right to be heard in his or her defence, which it seems was not considered here. What you describe is plainly all based on circumstantial evidence and to me is really not far from the concept of a kangaroo court. Moonraker2 (talk) 04:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Chicago meetups and outreach organization

Hey Mike, great to see you at the NYC meetup yesterday. It would be awesome if you could help User:TonyTheTiger to jumpstart Wikipedia:Meetup/Chicago and the local tusk of WALRUS. I hope those 'Welcome to Wikipedia' booklets come in handy!--Pharos (talk) 23:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll get to it when I can. Unfortunately, work has been a tad heavy this week, but hopefully near the end of this week or this weekend I can touch base with TonyTheTiger about a future meetup. –MuZemike 20:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

LMS protection

I've downgraded the article protection. Interesting to see my watchlist bombarded with edit warring over a category. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate it. –MuZemike 21:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

user:Wilbysuffolk

You blocked Wilbysuffolk (talk · contribs) for being a sockpuppet of user:Crouch, Swale. They have posted to their talk page denying that they are the same person. I cannot find any sockpuppet allegations or checkuser notes for either user, so please could you comment at user talk:Wilbysuffolk. Cheers, Thryduulf (talk) 18:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Wilbysuffolk and Adammugliston

I have commented on Wilbysuffolk's talk page, regarding his block and your idea of blocking me. An explanation of my 'sudden pop-up' is on the message I left on Wilbysuffolk's talk page and I would appreciate you reading it. '''Adam mugliston''' (talk) 20:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC) P.S. Regarding to your Rule 4 at the beginning of your talk page, I hope I was nice enough.

Thanks, Wilby Suffolk

I am sooo happy. Thanks for being so quick. I though my account would stay block forever. Wilbysuffolk (talk) 20:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Help

Is it possible to restore my userpage? Wilbysuffolk (talk) 20:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I just replied to your talk page explaining exactly why it was deleted. Please read that carefully, as we want to protect you from undesirable people. –MuZemike 20:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I would also like to thank you for the un-block and also officialy notify you that I found bullying and potential bullying by Charlesdrakew. '''Adam mugliston''' (talk) 21:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

User:PPdd

Can you please explain why you revoked this editor's talk page access? I.e., what was disruptive about his behaviour, and why you didn't explain it to him or warn him before revoking access? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, fine, I'll unblock talk page. I see that I have to follow process on every single lingle dingle thing around here. Regards, –MuZemike 20:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

My apologies to the community as a whole

I have made several consecutive errors regarding my judgment, many of which stemmed from my lack to follow "due process" like the rest of the community should have. I apologize and will recuse myself from all the conflicts mentioned in the threads above. Regards, –MuZemike 20:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

List of Fanboy and Chum Chum Episodes

Hi MuZemike, I noticed that you recently blockhammered an editor called Joseph Fleisher. A few days ago he unilaterally deleted data that I considered constructive from List of Fanboy and Chum Chum episodes. I posted 2 queries on his talk page about his changes; he ignored both, then blanked his talk page. I'm still working to establish consensus about what information should appear on that page. Since he is blocked for disruptive editing, would you consider it objectionable if I were to roll back his contributions and restore the data he deleted? Does that go against any Wiki rules? The data I would be restoring is consistent with the three examples of good pages shown here: "List Of" pages. I would be restoring the Writer, Director, and production # data, which he deleted with no justification. Thanks in advance for your help! Oh, and if you have any interest in contributing your thoughts on the consensus discussion, please do! :D Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with you reverting back, given that the user in question is now blocked and not going to be involved in that and other articles for a while. That being said, please respect opinions from any other users during your discussions on the talk pages. If you suspect others will also disagree, then don't revert, but instead discuss. –MuZemike 05:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts. The trouble I have most often, is that when I do ask contributors questions (Joseph Fleisher, for example,) or float questions on the discussion pages, there is no response. In the meantime, random contributors make unnecessary edits without explanation, remove constructive data, spark edit warring, then hide from discourse. It's difficult to maintain the page, while trying to avoid being a page cop. Anyway, thank you again for your thoughts. Out of curiosity, I was looking through this user's contribution history and didn't see a whole lot of reverts. Was the user operating via other accounts/IPs? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The Secret Service GA Review

Hi, and thanks for this review. Most of the suggestions made have been acted upon, e.g. tone in the plot summaries section. I don't know how the article as a whole now looks to you. Regards, SuperMarioMan 23:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Elliot Parish

Please restore this page you deleted. Subject is now "notable" having playing in the Football League for Lincoln City, albeit in a 6-0 pumping. Thanks. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 23:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I have restored the version created on 10 January 2011 but not the version created yesterday, as it was created by a sock puppet of 10alatham (talk · contribs), a disruptive user who is known to create large amounts of copyright violations. –MuZemike 23:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's not cut off our nose to spite our face, original is clearly inferior. Please restore correct version which I will knock into shape, thanks. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 00:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the deleted versions contain a direct copyright violation of [2]. What I have done, however, was put back in the infobox and other essentials (without restoring the copyvio) so that there is a little better start with the article. Hopefully that is of to your satisfaction. –MuZemike 00:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

That's brilliant, thanks MuZemike. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 16:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

CU Requested

When you get a couple, give this section of ANI a look-see, please. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 23:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Genesis (2007)

Thank you for reviewing above article. It is great appreciated. I have fixed and addressed all comments at the review page. Thank you for your time.--WillC 06:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

SPI question

Could you take a quick look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Spacini and tell me just what the admin is getting at regarding the IP's? Thank you! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I've made a comment at the SPI. –MuZemike 04:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I saw. In fact, my gut tells me that the IP's are not Spacini, unless he's playing a Jekyll-and-Hyde game. But what did the admin mean by, "CU won't connect an IP to an account"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

That normally means that, whenever possible, a CheckUser will not publicly make a connection between an IP and a registered user (unless it's bloody obvious) as that would reveal the approximate whereabouts of that user, which potentially violates the WMF privacy policy. –MuZemike 04:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, that would account for the lack of response sometimes when I inform a CU of an apparent IP. They might use it behind the scenes, but they're unlikely to confirm it overtly. Is that correct? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Basically, yes. Sometimes, the CUs are intentionally vague on some details for those reasons. –MuZemike 05:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

For sure. And not just for privacy's sake, but also "not to give the game away". I can recall times when socks demanded to know how the CU figured it out (while also denying having done it). I wonder, though, if the WMF is being a little stricter about this subject than they used to be, or if my memory is just faulty. Or it might be that they don't mind confirming it when it's only IP's involved. Still, some of this could be avoided by disallowing unregistered users to edit. I'm not expecting that anytime soon, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The Human Centipede (First Sequence)

Hi. Thanks for your incredibly helpful GA review for this article. I've made the requested changes and I hope I have made them to an appropriate standard. If there is anything I haven't done correctly or just anything I can improve please let me know on the review. Thanks! Coolug (talk) 17:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

YGM

Hi Mike, just to mention I've just sent you an email. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

And again :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

A-class review

Jinnai asked if some of us that worked on Maniac Mansion could reviewer Dragon Warrior for A-class. In exchange, he would review Maniac Mansion. I should have time this week to review it. Let me know if you do as well. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC))

If you aren't busy, could you do an A-class review on Frank Buckles as well? It is currently GA class. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 20:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll get started on Dragon Warrior when I can, since I know I have a whole bunch of sources on that game. –MuZemike 21:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

So, I take it you are busy? If so, I can track someone else down for the Frank Buckles article, it's no worries. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 21:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm trying to wrap up the GA backlog drive at the same time, so if you get someone else to do it, I don't mind. –MuZemike 21:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Okie Dokie, no worries. :) Thanks...Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 22:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Sock creations

Hello. Please could you delete the other two 10alatham creations as well: Alex Kačaniklić‎ and Rhys Bennett. I removed the copyvio, but they're still non-notable reserve-team players created for nuisance value. thanks, Struway2 (talk) 22:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I was going through them really quickly and did not catch those last two creations. –MuZemike 22:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks :-) Struway2 (talk) 22:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Account

Hi, a user that you "recently" banned 3 times for continued block evasion, http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_ChristiaandeWet, is back with another sock puppet account: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/MangYang he has already deleted sources at will, just take a look at his first change. Can you do something with this vandal? Cheers. History6969 (talk) 20:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Blocked as a sock of ChristiaandeWet. –MuZemike 18:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! History6969 (talk) 21:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello

What are the basis of becoming an abuse filter. If I do become one I will not be very active in actually editing but simply commenting. I am familiar with the policies and guidelines of an abuse filter and will make many useful contribs as one. Actually my real question is could you make me one? :D. Jessy ^(SCG01) 20:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've given you the userright. Make sure you familiarize yourself with the AbuseFilter extension and how it works, as well as look at the present filters as examples, before you start changing stuff around, as you may end up making something a little worse than before (as with any code for a program that was written by someone else). –MuZemike 21:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks and there is no need for that. When I say I know abuse filter, I KNOW ABUSE FILTERS :) Jessy ^(SCG01) 21:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

While I have no opinion here on SCG having access or not, I think we should stick to the process laid out at Wikipedia:Edit_filter#cite_note-0 rather than having just one person do it as it will probably be easy for hopefuls to find admins who will give out edit filter access without much care. —Soap— 21:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, I am already getting several complaints about this userright grant. I'm going to have to renege on the userright grant. SunCountryGuy, you will need to go to WT:FILTER and request it there, in which consensus will determine whether or not you get it. –MuZemike 21:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I have made a request at the edit filter manager talk page now is there any way you could kindly review this request. Jessy ^(SCG01) 22:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Pierrot lunaire (book)

The talk page of the above has been deleted, and I've been referred to you. This is the second deletion of this page, without explanation. Is there some glitch in the works that I should be aware of and should fix? I don't understand why this is going on. Thanks for your help. Beebuk 23:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Athaenara said it well here. You don't need to "activate" a talk page or anything. A talk page is normally created when it is needed, either when the first discussion starts or to place WikiProject tags, which I will do right now. –MuZemike 02:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help. And for the tags, which are much appreciated. Beebuk 13:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

IP Threats

Back in early January you put a long block on 63.131.4.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), mostly for threatening widespread disruption after a short 48 hour block. Yesterday some activity occurred on the IP's talk page, and just now a long threatening rant was placed on the page by the same user (The last number in the IP is one off) who removed yesterday's edit.[3] What the heck is going on? I've never seen this, but I'm sure you have. It's gotta be the same user as the blocked IP, and it's like 75% good edits and 25% threats of a familiar nature. Weird. Doc talk 06:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

In any case, the block is now 6 months, and the talk page is semi-protected. –MuZemike 06:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - the Wisconsin IPs might have us all blocked though ;> Doc talk 06:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Them Cheeseheads are rather full of themselves after da Super Bowl. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Wizards & Warriors passed

Good job on an article that doesn't seem to have much coverage at all. Tezero (talk) 14:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Suspicious account

Though Blue nacho (talk · contribs · count) has made positive contributions so far, the account smells a little socky to me. I'm wondering if the request to loosen the IP block is to allow more VOA accounts to be created. Just an FYI. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I have a warning to Blue nacho not to do it again, or I will reinstate the hardblock. So much for WP:AGF. –MuZemike 20:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey a strange request for a school project

I am trying to write a short paper on Gendegap in Wikipedia for class. I was wonder wondering if you could email through the email function the revision of Wikipedia:Think of Wikipe-tan! prior to it's nomination at MFD. I would appreciate it greatly. In full disclosure I asked Ironholds but apparently timed it after he went offline The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done –MuZemike 00:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanx The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Dragon Warrior A-assessment

Just a quick note that I'm in UTC+2, so I won't step on your toes on the review for quite a few hours. --Nczempin (talk) 00:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, I don't know if I'll do much more with the review tonight, as I have other stuff IRL to do. Hopefully, more to come tomorrow. –MuZemike 00:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 March newsletter

We are half way through round two of the WikiCup, which will end on 28 April. Of the 64 current contestants, 32 will make it through to the next round; the two highest in each pool, and the 16 next highest scorers. At the time of writing, our current overall leader is Hurricanehink (submissions) with 231 points, who leads Pool H. Piotrus (submissions) (Pool G) also has over 200 points, while 9 others (three of whom are in Pool D) have over 100 points. Remember that certain content (specifically, articles/portals included in at least 20 Wikipedias as of 31 December 2010 or articles which are considered "vital") is worth double points if promoted to good or featured status, or if it appears on the main page in the Did You Know column. There were some articles last round which were eligible for double points, but which were not claimed for. For more details, see Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring.

A running total of claims can be seen here. However, numerous competitors are yet to score at all- please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. The number of points that will be needed to reach round three is not clear- everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 01:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

thanks for copyediting

Hey MuZemike! Thanks for copyediting Gery Chico. I really appreciate having another set of eyes look over my work. Cheers, Geread (talk) 16:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

YGM

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

- Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 18:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Autoconformation RfC

A formal Request for Comment has now been started on this topic. Feel free to contribute; best, Ironholds (talk) 19:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Laser Clay Shooting System

Hello! Your submission of Laser Clay Shooting System at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 21:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Penaamiel

Hello. I stumbled upon the user page of User:Amielestoy. It claims to be a sock of Penaamiel so I thought I'd let you know. Cheers, Pichpich (talk) 22:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Blocked, with talk page pre-emptively revoked. –MuZemike 00:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK question

Hey MuZemike, please have a look at Template_talk:Did_you_know#Peter_Orno and weigh in, when you have a moment--I need a second (or third) opinion. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 00:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

nowiki

Hey MuZemike, I had fixed the problem with that link almost immediately, here. I think you were seeing a cached problem from before I replaced it with the URL.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, OK. I wasn't sure. –MuZemike 04:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Another

I'd like to bring your attention to Sharon Pilkington (talk · contribs), who "just happened" to add exactly the same source and text that was proposed by the sock you just blocked. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, looks like another admin got it. –MuZemike 22:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, if this persists, I will very likely be full-protecting the Special education article, so that nobody will be allowed to edit. –MuZemike 22:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

ChristiandeWeet

Dear MuZemike. MangYang, the multi-banned user, is back again with a new account. http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:EdDespard Cheers Pietje96 (talk) 19:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Blocked. –MuZemike 20:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

New e-mail

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

Baseball Watcher 01:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Tetsuo Takashima

Hi, I did a quick search on GNews but found the NYTimes link most prominent in the results already as a link in the article, consequently the BLPPROD was not valid so I've trimmed it off and added a reflist section to make it more obvious. Fæ (talk) 09:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, I might not have seen that. Thanks for the correction. –MuZemike 12:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Spam

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For constant helpfulness, even in complex and difficult matters. You're a star, you help keep Wikipedia great. It is appreciated.  Chzz  ►  22:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Editor XXV

Is there any way to stop that guy, or is he using too broad an IP range? If not, I suppose this will continue until the guy runs out of ideas for names. Ugh. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

If I could, he'd be long gone by now. Unfortunately, he jumps all over the CIDR spectrum. –MuZemike 20:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

GA Cleanup Barnstars/Medals

Is your robot going to distribute these, or are they self-claimed? Perhaps the instructions should clarify this point. Thank you for coordinating the drive. Racepacket (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I still need to do that. I haven't gotten around to it, unfortunately. –MuZemike 00:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MuZemike. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SayHiWorld.
Message added 18:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Question

Hey MuZe. Is it possible for your bot to archive FTCs since we are looking for a bot? Discussion. GamerPro64 (talk) 23:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Too much nonsensical stuff from them anon IPs at that talk page of Airbus A380 is driving me nuts, think I'll go for a break and thanks for calming things down with your words on ANI. Best.

--Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 09:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Winter Palace

Worked heavily on improving this today and finding new sources, copy editing, making concise, filling in refs to nominate for GA. See this. My hours of work completely reverted. Is this acceptable? I'm going to take some time away from here right now but can you seriously look into this revert and bring proper justice to this situation. I as you know am an experienced GA contributor but this sort of hostitlity has sickened me to the core.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Removal of GA banner is acceptable?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

If you know you're going to be around (though while on break) to address the issues that may come up during the GA review, then keep it up there. I mean, it's difficult to review a GA nomination when those mainly responsible and knowledgeable of what's behind the article are not present (the same applies with FACs). –MuZemike 20:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

You need an award as well

		The Good Article Reviewer's Medal of Merit
		I would like to award this medal to you for your hard work in organising the March 2011 GAN backlog elimination drive. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Monte?

Good day. Can look at this report please [4] ? Dighapet (talk) 23:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I haven't run any checks on that one (and the SPI case has since been archived), but the one account that is not currently blocked doesn't look terribly related, but Mark Barsky is either definitely him, or he recruited someone to edit and act like him on his behalf. –MuZemike 16:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Italics on Laser Clay Shooting System

Hello, is Laser Clay Shooting System supposed to be in italics? Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Queue 6 italics. OCNative (talk) 11:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk:The Way You Love Me (Keri Hilson song)

Please see the above page; you were the protecting admin, but I don't know if you remember that article or not. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the page's history, it looks like, when the now indef-blocked user created (and socks kept recreating it), there were some copyvio issues.

That being said, looking at the userspace draft, it looks pretty good that I don't think we really need to go through a discussion (that and the socks haven't been around for about 5 months), so I went ahead and unprotected the redirect. –MuZemike 22:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Susanne2009NYC / ILT

Hi, I've just realized User:Susanne2009NYC uploaded a bunch of images to be used in the Beatrix Potter biography which I think should be deleted.

• File:Potter and Kep.JPG
• File:Potter and her mother Helen Leech Potter.JPG
• File:Beatrix Potter with her father and brother 1894.JPG

I've taken them out of the article; can you make them disappear altogether? Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

You'd have to request deletion of them on Commons, as they were uploaded there. –MuZemike 02:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

That's too bad. I never get over there to edit. Thanks, anyway. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Laser Clay Shooting System

The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

A-Class Review

Hey Mike, I was wondering if you could do an A-Class Review on the Frank Buckles article. User:HJ Mitchell was reviewing the article, but his computer is "on the blink" and I have talked to him by email and he says it is going to be a few before it is fixed. If you can give it a look-see, I would appreciated it, but if you can't, that's cool too. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Nick-D is going to be the substitute reviewer. If you still wish to give the article a quick once-over and let me know of anything that needs fixed, please feel free. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:AN#Sockpuppet unblock review of B.Davis2003

There is a discussion at WP:AN#Sockpuppet unblock review concerning the unblock of B.Davis2003 (talk · contribs), whom you blocked. Cunard (talk) 04:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Rosanacurso

What do you think of this one?

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/85.49.79.12

Thanks.

Logical Cowboy (talk) 23:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say that's clearly him. However, I don't know what good blocking the IP will do due to his wardriving nature. –MuZemike 00:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you still sure this one is unrelated?

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/CalderonLillyA

Two edits about fish and chips, including one in the rarely used WT:Sandbox. And this is after an edit on Tea (meal). Logical Cowboy (talk) 00:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, after that last edit, I'm changing my mind and blocking instead. –MuZemike 00:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Mikeyasadie

I see that user:Mikeyasadie has been identified as a sock account. He duplicated an edit made back in December by Oh boy my danny boy (talk · contribs), identified as a sock of אֶפְרָתָה (talk · contribs). They may be linked.   Will Beback  talk  01:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Similar edits were also made by Bobbyomally (talk · contribs), blocked as a sock of Mynameisstanley (talk · contribs). Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mynameisstanley/Archive.   Will Beback  talk  01:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: Zedcannon

I only had limited contact with the user, and was unaware that they were using multiple accounts. Was there a discussion about this? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The following were all  Confirmed as each other:

• Zedcannon (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Johntoshiba (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Patric.covey (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Juicebox24 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

While BillJohnson0003 (talk · contribs) has been  Stale, the types of edits and edit patterns closely resemble him. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BillJohnson0003/Archive for details. –MuZemike 03:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. However, the archived SPI for BillJohnson from December makes no reference to Zedcannon. Are you saying that you yourself noted a similarity in edits/patterns and made a judgment call in place of a checkuser or SPI? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/BillJohnson0003 references Zedcannon (the active investigation, not the archive). Syrthiss (talk) 18:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sorry, I thought it was archived, but it wasn't. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BillJohnson0003. As far as your last question is concerned, I cannot look back at BillJohnson0003's edits because CU only keeps their information for so long for server reasons. Hence, I had to look at editing patterns and behaviors to draw that line. Even if you think they're not him, I find it hard to believe why four accounts are needed for the same articles. –MuZemike 18:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I wasn't aware of the background, hence my question. thanks to both you and Syrthiss for explaining it to me. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

AFD needs closing

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sonic_Generations

The nominator withdrew the afd. The discussion needs to be closed. ScienceApe (talk) 22:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Oversighting

You just oversighted one edit on the Incest page, and I'm thinking you might want to check some of the others. I'm not sure what the exact criteria are for RD2, but it looks like there have been a couple of recent vandalism edits that might qualify as grossly offensive. – RobinHood70 ^talk 01:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, all the edits from that one user I just blocked contained some fairly graphic descriptions that users really should not see and would normally fall under "grossly offensive material", which is what RD2 is (you can click WP:REVDEL for more details). –MuZemike 01:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

It looks like somebody inadvertently reverted to the oversighted edit (at least based on the edit summary) while you were oversighting it. I've reverted to the content that was there prior to the beginning of the offensive edits, but I think they can probably all go (2 IP edits plus the accidental reversion to the oversighted version by User:43?9enter). – RobinHood70 ^talk 04:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I have RevisionDeleted (which is different than Oversight/suppression) the reverted revision. --Bsadowski1 04:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if it was the same process or a different one. Thanks for the clarification. (Now that I follow the link, I see it, but I thought MuZemike was just pointing me to the deletion criteria, so I never looked.) – RobinHood70 ^talk 04:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

False positive?

Hi MuZemike. Can you take a look at Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Reports#218.186.19.235? He tripped filter 341, so I'm not clear whether this is a false positive or the filter working as intended. Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 06:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. I have altered the edit filter so that he should now be able to edit. –MuZemike 06:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll let him know. 28bytes (talk) 06:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Appy Awards

Hey MuZemike, I've responded to your oppose at the FLC. I'd be interested in your opinion there of these kinds of lists. It's certainly not the only case where the main article is the list, and in many cases where it's featured. I certainly don't see where it fails any of the FL criteria which is, after all, what the process gauges lists against. I'd very much appreciate it if you could expand on your brief comment. All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I've replied. I'm still confused what part of WP:WIAFL the list fails such that you blanket oppose it. Any advice you could add would be much appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Sock

Hey MuZemike--you blocked User:Jane his wife as a sock, and I think User:DeadSend4 is another one. I don't know who the original master is, so I'd like to ask you to file the proper paperwork, so to speak. See their actions on Nicole Kidman. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 00:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I would like to second this request. This editor is rewriting multiple articles that need to be checked to see if they are in compliance with policies and guideline now that I found some problems with references being used not matching the text in the article. I am going to be checking the Cate Blanchett article. Another editor seems to be trying to deal with the Nicole Kidman article but is getting slammed by rude and uncivil comments by user DeadSend4. Do you know who the original account is for these accounts? You can get more information from Tenebrae I will advice this editor of this discussion. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I have indeed been advised and I'm a very willing party to this discussion. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I think DeadSend4 is the sockmaster here, as he was already blocked for abusing multiple accounts, such as User:Jane his wife. Disruption is different, however, and could be blockable on that basis. –MuZemike 20:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Please go and read my edits on Nicole Kidman and you will see that Tenebrae has been reverting my edits without reading what I actually added to the article. I've added over 80% of information to this article and have compromised on several things, however this user continues to follow my edits and reverts them for no reason other than the fact that he thinks I have multiple accounts. I've done a step by step explanation with him yet he doesn't understand, he ignores what I say and complains about me. I don't see what the issue here considering I just compromised and explained my edits something that he doesn't bother to do. Instead of COMPROMISING he just reverts the ENTIRE page, completely disregaring the fact that I've added multiple citations and corrections. His complaint about "found some problems with references being used not matching the text in the article" lack no basis since he has not shown me specifically what those are, instead again, he reverts my edits and goes into an edit and THEN complains about me daily when he in fact has not bothered to compromise himself. Lastly, there is nothing wrong with the Cate Blanchett page, I already discussed the issue with Drmies and messaged her about the changes and apologized for not remarking what edits I made. The article does not have any problems with references or citations, again check for yourself, I'm not lying about what edits I make. It's this user's attempt to block me for the simple fact that...I honestly don't know the reason, but the fact that he doesn't compromise and bothers to read my explanations is bothersome and unfair.

Please take the time and read my recent edits that I made to Miss Kidman's page, you will see I did a step by step explination on almost every paragraph that this user continues to revert for no reason. In some cases, some sentences I FOUND citations for he reverts them back to missing citations. I don't understand. Had he were to read, he would see I'm actually adding citations, so it's obvious this person has something against me, because he's going back on the very same thing he reverted. Honestly, I feel this is a personal issue on behalf of the contributor. His complaints about me are only to get me blocked, yet he can't comprehend what I'm trying to tell him. I've tried to be civil and compromising, but once you get you article which you spend days working on reverted (by him specifically I counted he has reverted most of my edits AT LEAST...AT LEAST! 20 times!) then you start to get upset, because there is really no reason. DeadSend4 (talk) 21:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Update Just so you are aware, DeadSend4 was blocked yesterday for editing warring on the Nicole Kidman article for 48 hrs by administrator Nyttend. Thank you, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Just for the record: I'm not aware of any interaction with DeadSend about Cate Blanchett. I don't think I've ever edited that article or the talk page either, or DeadSend's talk page, as far as I remember. Drmies (talk) 19:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Got a Problem

As you know, I am working on the Frank Buckles article and trying to get it to A-Class and have run into a problem. User:Brad101 is being insanely unhelpful, giving short answers as to what is wrong with the article, not being forthcoming with information, and generally not responding to posts. My first two posts were ignored essentially, and my third was a pure frustration post for his post to the A-Class review page that read simply: "Oppose Overlinked article per MoS. Good luck at FAC." I am unsure how to respond any other way to this user and really feel they are holding up the review by not being helpful or responding. Perhaps you can talk to the guy, maybe he will respond to you, since you are an admin, cause I am out of ideas. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

He edited another page twice after your post, so he obviously seen the yellow bar, but didn't respond and now appears to be offline. This is exactly what I have been dealing with lately. :( - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

With this post, is there anyway to strike his "Oppose" since he is apparently unwilling to give further information? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Frances Brundage

Another of Susanne2009NYC / ILT's pages. The page is essentially copyvio from top to bottom. I have no interest in salvaging or scrubbing and was hoping you can delete it altogether, and the images too. This is an endless situation and better, I think, to get rid of the junk and spend effort on only a few pages that are worth salvaging. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

your block is affecting another user

Hi MuZemike,

User:Cekli829 asked me (in Azeri!) to help. S/he says s/he shares an IP address with User:Vugar 1981 at work, and your block of Vugar is blocking Cekli as well. S/he has a long history of contribs on WP-az.[5] I don't want to mess with the block, as I don't know how serious a problem Vugar is. Could you exempt Cekli from the block somehow? Thanks, — kwami (talk) 12:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Banned user is back

Hi, MuZemike. I'm writing because user ItsLassieTime, whom you and two other admins (User:Willking1979, User:Brandon) were involved in banning, has returned and is causing problems at Nicole Kidman and other pages. He is presently blocked for another day for edit warring and incivility.

This user is User:DeadSend4, who at the third post here concedes, “I am Jane his wife. But I'm [not] going to use that account anymore.” Jane his wife was a sock of ItsLassieTime.

Since you were involved in banning ItsLassieTime, who notoriously has used a squadron of sockpuppets, I wanted to alert you that while banned, he is back and behaving the same way under another name. I and several editors whom you'll see at Talk:Nicole Kidman would appreciate any help, information or insight you might provide. With great thanks, --Tenebrae (talk) 17:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Oy. Methinks that character wears an athletic supporter a couple sizes too small. Explanation: That was one of the editor's early subjects of interest, and he uploaded several TMI photos. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it could be validly presumed his wife had a separate account, assuming good faith. Meanwhile, if I were living in an apartment building and another Wikipedia editor also lived in the building, I would not want either him or myself accused of sockpuppetry due to the fact we live in the same building. What is disturbing is that they edit with each others' accounts from the looks of it. CycloneGU (talk) 19:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

"Jane his wife" is a lyric from The Jetsons' theme song, and DeadSend4 has openly admitted that that is his account. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

No question DeadSend4 is a sock of Jane His Wife. But where's the evidence that Jane His Wife is a sock of Its Lassie Time? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

So DeadSend4 was innocent, and unfortunately for him, his behavior reminded some veterans of ItsLassieTime. However, I see that this was not a total waste of time, as another couple of ILT socks were found, including one who edited earlier today. One thing to maybe be aware of is that ILT was notorious for uploading fair-use content, much of which was eventually zapped. We'll see if this incarnation's fair-use uploads stick around or not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I just had a quick look at the ILT sock's contribs - I think we should start zapping everything this person contributes. Scrubbing takes much too much time. I'm willing to try to salvage the GAs but nothing much beyond that. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

And by the way, that's another of ILT's trademarks: He's a GA junky, which he readily admitted at some point a couple of years go. He's a banned user, so anything he has added is automatically fair game for deleton, by rule. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, ILT is a woman. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't count on it. The real sockmaster is probably TimmyTruck (talk · contribs), which was created several months before ILT. Timmy claimed[6] to be a 90-something resident of a nursing home, a Nazi survivor yet; and blamed any apparent socking or bad editing on other residents. Similarly, when ILT made the mistake of answering a question in the voice of a different sock,[7] as blatant a socking blunder as I've ever seen, it went ballistic and claimed to be a mother whose somewhat mentally-ill daughter was responsible for the socking. Dead's reaction reminded me of ILT's reaction at the time. Which goes to show that apparent M.O.'s can be misleading. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

And by the way, Timmy got dinged as recently as February for in improper image upload, despite the fact he last edited a couple of days after creating the ILT account early in 2008. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

For those who wish to read (and weep), Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive528#Montanabw: Disruptive Behavior (?), aka the "socker mom incident". –MuZemike 21:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Good title. :) And in my experience, the mother of all boomerang incidents. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Image strengthening

I've found that a lot of good articles and probably a lot of featured articles (I haven't check them yet) are abusing the use of copyrighted images on Wikipedia (for example, I've seen several articles that use three images to visualize content in the article even though the first image demonstrates everything that the other two images are trying to do). Would you be interested in helping fix this problem? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

suspected puppet

Dear MuZemike, I believe this account: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/Foobfairbanks is another one of [8] puppets, I'm almost sure. Greetings Pietje96 (talk) 18:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

 Confirmed plus:

• Pfifer11 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

–MuZemike 21:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Giles

Why full? Why not just semi? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Because it looks like a dispute over whether or not the material should be in the infobox, in which both sides seem to be in some disagreement over. That needs to be hashed out on the talk page. –MuZemike 21:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Bob's Burgers & List of Bob's Burgers episodes; Pending Changes?

I'll admit to it being a new concept on me, but Ctjf83 (talk) made a suggestion on BlueMondo's An/I report to switch to pending changes protection. I checked out the pending changes page to alleviate my ignorance on the subject, and it seems to me, given the deftness of our sock friend at circumventing all blocks and protection other than full, that a level 2 PC would be necessary. I ran it by Elockid, who indicated via the RfC that the trials were pretty much limited now to already PC'ed pages, but also indicated that the trials didn't really incorporate Level 2, and that this might make for an interesting opportunity to test it, if you didn't mind. I was curious about how you might feel about that, and, if you had no objections, if it would be permissible for me to post on the Bob's Burgers talk pages to see where other editors stand on the idea. It might just be a good opportunity to get something good out of this experience, and I can only imagine it being as preferable to other editors as it seems to be to Ctjf83 and myself to be able to on some level edit, instead of edit-by-proxy, which is where I can only imagine this trivia Terminator is going to leave us indefinitely. KnownAlias contact 23:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I'm skeptic that it will work, but if you can get a rough consensus to implement L2 Pending Changes, I won't stand in the way of it. However, we must make it clear that we do not tolerate disruption on this scale, nor can he edit those articles; failing that, we have no choice but to unblock him. –MuZemike 23:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I'm still not understanding how PC works, then; wouldn't the edits still be under review, thereby preventing the need to keep him from editing there? And why would he need to be unblocked if he's a proven sock? Or is the disruption your talking about to the trial itself, and not the page? I want to make sure I understand this before I fully advocate it; so far I've been looking here, though, based on your last statement, I just started reading this. KnownAlias contact 23:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Let me respond to both separately:

In L2 Pending Changes, changes are only implemented and made live when a reviewer (or a sysop) approves them or "sights" them.

As far as my last comment is concerned, if we cannot keep those articles full-protected, and we cannot stop the disruption by normal means, then there is no purpose in continuing to try and stop the disruption; hence, we have to let him go. I know, in that sense, it's a rather defeatist point of view, but we can only do so much with what tools we're given. –MuZemike 23:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Blocking User:Who Am I Why Am I Here

I've been around for awhile, and I know sockpuppetry is forbidden. I couldn't figure out how you made the connection for that user, though. Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Handling suspected sock puppets suggests there might be some investigation. Is there a step short of a block that might be friendlier to newcomers? Can User:Who Am I Why Am I Here be unblocked now, but not the alternate account? It seems to me he's learning the ropes. -- ke4roh (talk) 14:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The user apologized for it and understood what he did wrong. Hence, I went ahead and unblocked. –MuZemike 15:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

81.164.209.246 and BlackDalek

81.164.209.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
BlackDalek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I see you quickly blocked BlackDalek as an Editor XXV sock, which stands to reason. I asked the admin who blocked his IP, but I'll ask you also: The IP is showing as blocked, yet somehow he was able to edit his user page. How did he do that? And if BlackDalek is Editor XXV, is not the IP also Editor XXV? Or did XXV/BlackDalek use some kind of shenanigan to impostor the IP account? If it's the latter, no details please. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

That edit was made before the blocks on the other accounts were placed. Currently, that IP can only edit his talk page due to the autoblock. –MuZemike 19:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, now I'm confused. The IP still shows as being blocked, even though theoretically the block has expired. Or is the autoblock keeping that banner there? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, has anyone looked into possible connections with the other 3 banned sockmasters that I had listed on the IP's user page? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that shows up for current or recent direct blocks (as the block would have expired not too long ago). As far as I am concerned, there are definitely socks there, and if they don't belong to Editor XXV (as only one of them went right to Transformers), then they're definitely someone else's; could be Mantanmoreland, but I haven't checked that out yet. –MuZemike 20:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

They might be stale anyway. As my most trusted admin once told me, it doesn't really matter tht much: It's easier to think of ALL socks as being just one guy... and to focus on protecting wikipedia rather than spending too much time trying to tie socks together. That doesn't stop me from being curious, though. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Appy Awards at WP:FLC

Hello MuZemike. I answered your criticism at the FLC, I'm not sure on what grounds you're opposing the list. I don't want to appear impatient but it's unclear to me why a list with a decent introduction (which is what FLC is all about) would draw your opposition. We don't have a "good lists" process, that's been shot down more times than I can remember, so FLC is the only route. There are many lists with a comprehensive lead, then a list. It's been the de facto standard for lists for quite some time now. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I thought I made it clear (I have tried to clarify there), that it is not a question of whether or not the criteria are met, but whether or not this is a list page (which I don't think it is). –MuZemike 20:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so the analogies I drew with other lists like Bodley's Librarian didn't help clarify that we can have a main article/list combined? And I think reference to WP:WIAFL #6 is somewhat tenuous, don't you? Subject to edit war? Changing on a day-to-day basis? Hardly the case, is it? If Appys 2 turns up in April 2012 then we'll have a second award list to get to featured. It'll have its own lead, references etc, be standalone and meet WP:WIAFL too. In any case, thanks for your recent interest in FLC. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Froggy Jump

Hi MuZemike. I was wondering why you deleted half of my froggy jump article. The things you deleted were nearly the same as those in the doodle jump article, but they were not deleted. Can you kindly inform me why you deleted this stuff? Lisa Looloo (talk) 09:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

First off, it is not your article; once you hit the "Save page" button, it becomes the community's article and can be edited within common sense and our various editing guidelines. I removed the information because it is not material that is appropriate for an encyclopedia article; Wikipedia is not an instruction manual or game guide, and while you can provide some basic gameplay information, one should not provide information that is overly-detailed. I will also remove the similar material from the Doodle Jump article, as well. Regards, –MuZemike 15:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dylan620 2

		The Admin's Barnstar
		I would have given this to you sooner, but I didn't want it to be mistaken for brownnosing; thanks for taking care of the trolling situation at my RfA! --Dylan620's public alt (I'm all ears) 12:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Now, could you please remove the protection? Now that the RfA is closed, trolling shouldn't be a problem anymore. Cheers, Dylan620's public alt ^{(I'm all ears)} 12:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, the semi-protection expires in a couple of days; you could wait til then. –MuZemike 15:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

And actually, I'm now leaning towards full-protection per this latest sock who busted autoconfirmed: AfterHelper11 (talk · contribs). –MuZemike 19:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Another barnstar

		The Admin's Barnstar
		Awarded to MuZemike, for taking care of the situation at WP:AN/I and help in identifying Yomiel as a sockpuppet of Fragments of Jade. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Apparently I am doing something right... –MuZemike 16:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Protection request

Could you please fully protect User talk:MauchoEagle/Archive 1 for me please. Thanks. mauchoeagle _(c) 16:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Got it. –MuZemike 16:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. mauchoeagle _(c) 16:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Oops

One of the unwritten laws of Wikipedia seems to be that if you criticise someone about something (e.g. their use of English), you will inevitably make the same mistake soon after. Did you really mean has received? (By the same rule, I've probably done something stupid here as well) ;-)  —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 17:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I'd argue to varying degrees of understanding, though. –MuZemike 19:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Note

The IP here[9] is claiming not to be a sock of his "brother", the user Anglo Pyramidologist‎. What do you think? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• sigh* Oh, brother... –MuZemike 19:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, "brother", as opposed to "invisible roommate". :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

User:MuZxmike

Hi, just letting you know there is a User:MuZxmike who has just started editing, and has user page/talk page redirects to you. Sorry if it is a legitimate alternate account, but in case it is not, I thought you should be alerted. Monty₈₄₅ 18:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, they have already been blocked. Monty₈₄₅ 18:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Early NP issues

Can you check the early NP issues (7-10) for plot info for Dragon Warrior? Mostly for character info on Erdrick, the Dragonlord or anyone else.陣内_Jinnai 21:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Most certainly; in fact, that was my intent. –MuZemike 21:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Everything is Terrible!

The DYK project (nominate) 06:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

SuperblySpiffingPerson

Hi MuZemike, the continuing vandalism of user:SuperblySpiffingPerson at Timeline of the 2011 Libyan civil war especially with IPs is obviously never ending... I asked User:Favonian on his talkpage if we should ask for a rangeblock to get rid of this disruptive vandal and he mentioned that you might be more helpful in implementing/asking for such a block. If you have a tip for us how to proceed or if you know ho we can implement such rangebblock please let me know; and as Favonian is involved in this too I think that we should keep the discussion were it began, namely at User_talk:Favonian#Gaddafi-lover vandal. thanks, noclador (talk) 15:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

User:DescentPro seems oddly familiar... especially edit comments like "Added much need independent perspective". But the account has been registered years ago... still, it seems oddly familiar regarding editing pattern, style of text and edit comments. What is your take in this? noclador (talk) 23:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't respond earlier, but, while suspect, DescentPro seems completely  Unrelated. –MuZemike 07:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

thanks, I thought so too - but the edit comments were strikingly similar and I wanted your opinion on the matter. thanks, noclador (talk) 10:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

IP block exempt

G'Day MuZemike, I often use one of the Opera Mini mobile browsers, which go through a common server - which has been IP blocked in the past. If that doesn't happen anymore, then fine, otherwise I obviously don't want to lose access. Regards The-Pope (talk) 23:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen any history of blocks from the IPs that you have been using for quite a while, so let's see how it works now. If you have problems again, either post an unblock request or email me, and I can set up back up. –MuZemike 07:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Help request

Hey, Mike. I've come to you because I know crap about rangeblocks. If you think I should direct my request elsewhere, let me know. When you have time, can you look at this? I have been requested to lift article protection in favor of a rangeblock. Can you confirm the assessment that two /19 ranges would be affected? What kind of numbers are covered by two /19 ranges? Depending on your assessment we may need to have further discussion on this matter. See ya 'round Tiderolls 23:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I have blocked 125.162.0.0/19 for 1 month, but anon-only (i.e. people can still freely create an account). From that ANI thread, there is another range, but I'm leaving that unblocked as there is no activity on that range currently. Let's see what happens. –MuZemike 23:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Mike. I'll lift the article protection pending the result of your action. Tiderolls 23:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Rareware

Hellos, I put the category there because it helps the list of games made in the uk. –(JamieRothery (talk) 18:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC))

Stopping beating one's wife...

I like the idea of declining to unblock someone because he isn't blocked. I suppose there's no other way built into the system to deal with that. Peridon (talk) 20:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know any other direct way to deal with such unblock requests. I mean, I'm guessing the person is a newcomer who doesn't realize that. Anyways, I don't know if the {{unblock}} template could be modified to include every case in which a user is not blocked, as some users may end up being caught under an actual hardblock in which only a CU can see (and we don't want to be disclosing private information if he can't help it). –MuZemike 20:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Could you please...

(I) Delete the talk page of User:Juggalo11 and (II) reblock him to not include talk page access. mauchoeagle _(c) 21:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Was in the process of doing that when you sent me the above message. –MuZemike 21:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

:) --mauchoeagle _(c) 21:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Dragon Warrior

Anything major that still needs to be done? I've found some info for the characters' backstories.陣内_Jinnai 23:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for the delays that I have brought on; I still owe you follow-up comments on that when I get an opportunity to sit down and look at the improvements (as well as the rest of the article). –MuZemike 07:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Your checkuser capabilities needed

Could you please checkuser User:KnowIG and tell me if one of his IPs is User:2.103.0.227. If so you're assisstance is needed at AIV. mauchoeagle _(c) 23:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Ryzom review

Thanks for your review of the Ryzom page. I've since addressed many (but perhaps not all?) points raised, and although it's still a work in progress - much like WP itself - I'd like to get some feedback in order to adjust the course, if necessary. So, if you have the time and inclination, I'd appreciate it if you took a second look and updated your review. Ketil (talk) 08:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive editor?

Could you drop this editor[10] a line? He appears to be removing references for unspecified reasons. Thank you. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm watching, but without much confidence in that the user will improve any. –MuZemike 06:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Question

I'm sure I'll get stalked to this page, but whatever. I'm not going to start asking these things off-wiki. Could you please compare these accounts for similarity if you have time?[11][12][13][14][15][16][17] There are several alleged imposters here that could be the same person, and I'm curious if there is any discernible relations between the accounts. If you can't comment or just don't want to deal with it, I'll understand. It's just danged weird is all. Thanks! Doc talk 02:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

drop the fucking stick, already. they're trolls; this is what trolls do, they fuck with people, especially me. the arbs and CUs know all about it. Barong 07:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Another sock of User:TNHtnh

User:TNHtnh isn't even being subtle any more. See User:OrangeSchmuck as the newest example. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protected 2 weeks, though I predict a full-protection shortly. –MuZemike 06:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

What happened on my page?

Hi, I see that an edit was purged on my page. I'm relatively new to Wikipedia...What happened? Thanks! Mrmewe (talk) 05:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Which page is that? –MuZemike 06:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, my user talk page. Mrmewe (talk) 14:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I've protected the page for the time being (if you haven't noticed). Let me know and I'll unprotect it. –MuZemike 15:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The userpage that is, not the talk page, as I'm wary to protect a talk page. –MuZemike 15:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate your help! Mrmewe (talk) 17:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

JAX ADSL CBB Vandal

Hey Mike, remember the "JAX ADSL CBB" vandal I told you about? The one that is vandalizing a ton of television stations? Well, he is back at it at 74.178.209.6. I think a range block or at least an edit filter might be in order. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Bassist DaTaco

Is there a SPI for his account? Where is the evidence? --Σ _☭^★ 04:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

He has been  Confirmed as to abusing several vandalism-only accounts. –MuZemike 14:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

So the investigation is somewhere in an admin-only board of some sort? --Σ _☭^★ 23:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

No, it isn't, because I thought it was fairly clear from what I looked at. If not, I can unblock and then start one if you feel that I have erred in any way. –MuZemike 05:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

So he is linked to the various vandals who vandalized my userspace? --Σ _☭^★ 06:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, he is. If you wish to discuss this further, I recommend we communicate this via email. –MuZemike 06:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I have no further questions. Thank you for the information you provided. --Σ _☭^★ 03:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Hamza Kazazi

Hi, someone is making a lot of redirections and renaming without asking anyone. In the case of Hamza Kazazi he renamed the article by putting the title "bey" even though apparently he was not, in fact there is not a single source of him being bey, while certainly was a popular figure (actually he was head of artisans of the city). Could you please revert this article to its previous name? It is impossible for me to do so. Thanks Aigest (talk) 14:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

thank you

I would like to thank you ahead of time for revoking 142.163.190.221's user talk page access. Crazymonkey1123 public (talk) 23:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't revoke talk page, but I did extend the block to 1 month as he was also using a registered account (as one can plainly see in the Barney and Friends edit history). –MuZemike 23:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

AN messup...

Hi MuZeMike, I submitted my comment at AN, and for some reason, no edit conflict warning, no nothing... it went through and deleted yours. I have thus undone my edit to restore yours, then re-posted my edit exactly as originally submitted, with a note to that effect. Just figured I'd let you know what happened, in case you noted the undo and subsequent post. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 06:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

No worries. –MuZemike 06:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Mahomie15

I'm a little unsure about the indefinite block of User:Mahomie15 as a vandalism only account. His only edits seem to have been trying to create an article about himself as a musician. That is unacceptable of course, but an indefinite block seems a bit too much for only two edits. Has he been here before with that stuff? User:Fred Bauder Talk 01:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I will email you with the details, if I may. –MuZemike 03:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Tyw7

Hey MuZemike, I saw your comment. Did you have a specific reason for saying so? I'm asking because of a discussion I've been having with another user--see comments on my talk page, another editor's talk page, and Tyw's talk page. In a nutshell, Shirt58 suspected that the editors who had been welcomed by Tyw but had not made any edits might be their socks. I responded and said that I welcome users all the time before they make any edits--and then I saw your note, but couldn't find anything in Tyw's history that suggested an SPI or something like that was going on. Your comments are appreciated! Drmies (talk) 14:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I made that warning because he was strongly considering that the other day on IRC, despite many of us saying that creating a new account would be an attempt at evading scrutiny, in which WP:CLEANSTART does not apply. I wanted to make that crystal clear on-wiki that he cannot do that, or he is likely going to be blocked for socking. If I came across as "abusive", then my apologies. However, he needs to understand that he cannot evade scrutiny by creating a new account. –MuZemike 14:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Gotcha. See, I'm never on wiki off-wiki, so I guess I miss out on all the juicy gossip. Hey, I wasn't trying to suggest you were incorrect--I figured you had some indication that I just wasn't privy to. Now, I'm still not convinced that there's anything suspicious about their welcoming these new editors--are you? I mean, Tyw has done some rather odd things in my opinion (I think [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names&diff=prev&oldid=429470298 this is weird) for someone like them), so welcoming a bunch of new users in the midst of all those image conflicts does not seem so strange to me. At any rate, thanks, and please spread some horrible rumor about me at IRC. Later! Drmies (talk) 15:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Neutopia

I reviewed the article. I'm also doing reviews for the other two. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 00:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/dispute resolution

Had you noticed this has reopened? I only did today. I stopped looking in after discussion faded away. Now I've put it on my watchlist. I've just checked and find the preceding one was opened just over two years ago and has still not been closed and archived. Peter jackson (talk) 14:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

One more User:Fikri Miftahurahmat sock

Yesterday you banned three socks of User:Fikri Miftahurahmat (User:Fikri Miftahul Rahmat, User:Ferry Deniswara, and User:Diantika Rahmat Galih Permana). I found one more, User:Fikri Rahmat, that hasn't been blocked (if that isn't a sock, I'd be very, very surprised). Just wanted to bring it to your attention, he's only made one edit so far, but he may just be laying low for a couple of days. - SudoGhost™ 14:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Latest Bambifan attack

Hey there ... I saw your recent post on this latest assault on the project, and I think that his latest tactic seems to have not really generated any damage. The Soulessnake account laid low for a few days, then an anon IP (that I believe to be him as well) started making minor changes (such as changing "ninth" to "9th"), which Soulessnake would then undo when he first logged on with that account this evening (thus putting the article back to where it was before he touched them). After a few undos (actually, about 10), the "fun" began as he had met the criteria for auto-confirmation, which allowed him to edit freely in his target articles, which are semi-protected. This new M.O. should be added to the abuse page for other editors to pay attention to. In fact, may do just that before I go to bed. --McDoobAU93 07:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

You posted one second too early :) I just blocked one of his ranges for a year. –MuZemike 07:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Otherwise, if he knows how to bust autoconfirmed (which he obviously does), then you have no choice but to full-protect all affected articles. I've been saying this for a long time, but that's all you can do. –MuZemike 07:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

If pending changes can be turned back on, I'd think that PC Level 2 plus semi-protection could be enough. At the very minimum, it would take longer for his handiwork (even the "constructive" stuff) to reach a point where the sock would be trusted enough with reviewer privileges ... yes, Bambifan is crafty, but more and more editors are getting wise to his actions. This one didn't get very far, with a number of editors fixing his damage rather quickly. --McDoobAU93 07:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It's up to you folks, ultimately. I mean, if you want to keep bashing your heads against the proverbial wall, then go ahead; community norms dictate that I cannot stand in the way of that. –MuZemike 07:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Josh Rumage sock

Hi. I'm sorry to bring this to you, but could you please block User:74.47.65.164 as I suspect (per WP:DUCK) this is banned user Josh Rumage evading his block yet again. Last night, another of his blocked IPs left a message about edits he wanted to make to the Laraine Day article (a target of Josh and his socks). This morning, 74.47.65.164 edited the article making some of the changes Josh was on about (adding a pic from Commons) and leaving a very Josh-like edit summary. If you would rather me take this to SPI, please let me know. Thanks. Pinkadelica^♣ 18:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I've done better; I've semi-protected the page for a month. –MuZemike 20:32, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Requesting sockpuppet block

Hello. Sorry to bother you, but can you block Romar9123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? Based on his MO, this is surely as sockpuppet of Christian2941 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). An second SPI has been filed in relation to this. And while we're at it, can you also block the succeeding potential usernames (such as "Romar9124," "Romar9125," "Romar9126," etc.). It is very likely he would use those potential usernames in making a new account. Thanks in advance. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 16:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Question about using TW to report sockpuppets

I see you commented on my latest sockpuppet report. I have a quick question which I hope you can answer, or point me to the right place to ask it. When creating a sockpuppet report using TW it seems to always list the first sock both as the case and as a sock of the case, which I then seem to have to go in to edit manually to remove. What am I doing wrong? Thank you for any guidance. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 03:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't list the first sock, as that gets listed for you. –MuZemike 04:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I'm still confused - how does it figure out who the actual sock is then? It just gives an entry box for each name. If you don't list the first one how does it figure it out? ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I figured it out. Sorry for the bother! ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 19:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rainman64

Hi

I have updated Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rainman64 with some more information. Mtking (talk) 00:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Glass Joe

While you may be busy, I was hoping that you could give Glass Joe a copyedit and/or provide a comment on its FAC. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 03:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey

Did you only check Anguished56 with Bricklines, or did you check entire Wikipedia? You can reply here. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I checked both accounts, and they appear to be in two separate locations. Moreover, one of the IPs is from RIM (which I don't think Grawp has used lately if at all), so I cannot reliably block any of those accounts purely on technical evidence. –MuZemike 16:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

But you didn't do a range check for Anguished56? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Revision history of Jack and the Beanstalk

In summary you wrote "rvv per WP:BAN" I am sure you are aware that rvv means "rv vandal", so I guess you meant "rv per WP:BAN". The guy was banned for socks and disruption, not for WP:VANDAL. I know I am nitpicking, but sometimes it is good to know the issue exactly. Also, many people start using 'rvv' carelessly for any reverts, and some editors find this offensive. So I would like to ask to pay an extra attention to correct usage of "double-v". Muslim lo Juheu (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC).

I will try and be more careful next time. Thank you for letting me know, –MuZemike 23:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Re more ItsLassieTime socks

Hi MuZemike, can you also check User:Tower4Sitz. I think we may have to stubbify Jack and the Beanstalk.... still working my way through the history there. Thanks. TK (talk) 19:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The user above just kinda threatened me, [18], so we should either clear them or tie them in with the sock farm. If not part of the sock farm, obviously I owe an apology for being suspicious - which unfortunately is the result of all of this. Anyway if you're not around, maybe one of your talk page stalkers can help, or send it to CU. Thanks. TK(88) 20:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind - added it to the SPI. Thanks. TK(88) 20:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• After you banned one of his socks, an editor who has only edited one article ever, and that back in November, suddenly appears and starts acting exactly like the banned person. His only current contributions are involving an AFD that the now banned sockpuppet User:NYFernValley had nominated and was arguing to eliminate. He even goes to another user's talk page, and refers to two people he previously disagreed with in that AFD as "assholes". Can you investigate GlasgowGuyScotland also? He doesn't have many contributions to look through. Special:Contributions/GlasgowGuyScotland Dream Focus 20:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Yep, the following also  Confirmed as sleeper socks of ItsLassieTime:

• GlasgowGuyScotland (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tower4Sitz (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• NewHouse4533 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• HomeComingQueenl1942 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• MyFebruaryBirthday (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• JacksonTimothy (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

I obviously won't be able to tell what else he has, but I did find another IP range in which I have blocked; as usual, it's not 100% foolproof, but it should help. Otherwise, semi or even full-protection may need to be considered on some of the affected pages, but I have not been able to look at the amount of disruption yet on any of the usual articles. –MuZemike 23:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I've found these which might be sleepers. Pulled them from the history of the usual articles. Things seem to be calming down a bit.

• Yvido (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Pennycandy (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Riverstepstonegirl (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Hoonoki (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Rapunzelvern (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Brainster (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

I realize you're on break, but if I leave these here maybe someone else will add them to the SPI. If not I'll do it later. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I know; I have a little downtime (finally!) in which to catch up on some stuff. From a CU standpoint, they're all either  Inconclusive or  Stale; editing patterns might be there, but technical evidence is not there. –MuZemike 23:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Btw - I like the pic at the top of your page. I've driven that road a few times. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Reece Wabara

Hi. I notice you recently deleted the following article:

• 16:41, 25 May 2011 MuZemike (talk | contribs) deleted "Reece Wabara" ‎ (G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban)

Wabara has now played for Man City's first team so he meets notability criteria (which he didn't previously). Barring any objections, I'd like to reinstate the article. Is the deleted version worth using, or should I start from scratch? Clicriffhard (talk) 14:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as with another article which I think either you or somebody else informed me about a while back, part of it is a copyright violation and cannot be directly restored. However, I can email you the wikitext of the article sans the offending material in so that a new version of the article can be started. –MuZemike 23:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Quick question

Well, hope you had fun at your track event and glad to see that your road trip isn't indefinite :). Just wondering if you recognized the user who made this edit. I already blocked him/her as a username violation, but I've never heard of Twinkle being used to vote in RfAs and I've certainly never heard of a new user with "sysop" in their name using the term "rollback" within their first five edits. I know there have been socks that tend to participate in RfAs, so maybe you knew who this was?

And if you don't, I have a second question: given that CU is not for fishing, how suspiciously DUCKy does an account have to be in order for a CU to be done if there's no one to compare it do? I've requested one or two privately when it was obvious a user was a sock but unsure of whom, and I was just wondering whether that depends on the CU or if there's some sort of threshold for that to be done. I keep a short off-wiki list of users I'm almost certain are socks, but I've never known what to do with it, other than just periodically check on the users' edits. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

It's Papa Smooch (talk · contribs). –MuZemike 14:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Ty, that was fast for a read trip :) /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 19:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Ducks...

Hi MuZemike, I suspect waterfowl in this incident[19]. If you would consider re-evaluating it and would like additional details, please let me know. Thanks, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 01:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

If others think they're the same via editing patterns and behaviors, then I don't mind if blocks are made. I mean, CU is not definitive. –MuZemike 21:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi again, should I re-SPI, or AN/I? Thanks, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 22:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think ANI would be ideal, but you could just revert the archiving on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rainman64 if you think a further look at the behaviors are warranted. –MuZemike 22:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Much thanks. -Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 22:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Error in judgment on Benjamin Ramm's page

Hi MuZemike -- Sorry to be posting this on your archive page, but I can't figure out how to get write access to your current talk page. A friend of mine with the username Presencegenerating recently tried to post her first-ever comment on the talk page of Benjamin Ramm, and it seems to have been moderated by you in a rather bizarre fashion, claiming that she's a sock puppet of a blocked user attempting to impersonate an administrator (none of which is remotely true). Would you mind shedding some light on this? Thanks. Axfelix (talk) 13:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

		The Special Barnstar
		Thanks for handling the old IP Block Exemptions I'd placed while I was inactive. :-) Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Happy 3rd Wiki Anniversary!

Happy First Edit Day, MuZemike, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!

November Hotel Romeo Hotel Sierra Two Zero One Zero ✈ 17:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 May newsletter

We're half way through round 3 of the 2011 WikiCup. There are currently 32 remaining in the competition, but only 16 will progress to our penultimate round. Casliber (submissions), of pool D, is our overall leader with nearly 200 points, while pools A, B and C are led by Racepacket (submissions), Hurricanehink (submissions) and Canada Hky (submissions) respectively. The score required to reach the next round is 35, though this will no doubt go up significantly as the round progresses. We have a good number of high scorers, but also a considerable number who are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. Also, an important note concerning nominations at featured article candidates: if you are nominating content for which you intend to claim WikiCup points, please make this clear in the nomination statement so that the FAC director and his delegates are aware of the fact.

A running total of claims can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

My comment about SPI interface

Hi, Mike! Sorry if my complaints about the SPI user interface chafed at all. I know, all too well, how frustrating an experience it can be to try to define a user interface by committee, especially where that committee has no experience whatever in the field. And, of course, I also know how poor the result is likely to be in such a case. I don't know whether you've worked on that page or not, I haven't looked at its history. But if so, please let me apologize if it the criticism of the result seemed to be directed in any way at those who contributed to the process.

There are many articles here that I also think "suck eggs" (to use the term I perhaps unwisely allowed myself at AN/I) that I just leave alone because they're a very imperfect but extremely hard won consensus version, and even small tweaks are likely to set off a new firestorm of acrimony. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that this was the case with the current SPI interface, too. But I fully take your point that it's much easier to criticise than it is to help solve the problem, so I'll try to join in the current discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations within the next few days, and see if I can contribute any useful ideas. Thanks for your comment, and again let me say my criticism of the interface wasn't meant as criticism of the people who've contributed to shaping it. Best regards,  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Not much need to apologize at all. For what it's worth, all of Wikipedia has been constructed "by committee" → that's the nature of an open wiki! By construction, that can also be a reason why improvements on constructs tend to be stifled; look no further than the complaints that arise when the devs implement something over the community's head (but now I am starting to digress). –MuZemike 16:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Block of new editor

Could you please speed up your blockings? You're getting awfully slow. User:Dicksohard2020 was created at 21:11 [20], and you waited until 21:13 to block him [21]. 2 minutes? 2 MINUTES? It took you THAT long to block him?!?!? For shame, for shame. Turn in your admin bit now :) --Hammersoft (talk) 21:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Aw, I'm getting rusty, then :) Anyways, autoblock is disabled, so he is allowed to create another account which is a bit more appropriate in taste. –MuZemike 21:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Dwarm12345 SPI

Hi, MuZemike.

I am not familiar with the SPI process. I see that a recent user check at http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Dwarm12345 does not confirm that the accounts are related. I am asking you here rather than comment there because it does not seem appropriate for me to do so given the template remarks.

First, can I assume that this is negative evidence? That it does not support but does not disprove the accusation? Or is it considered exhonorating?

Second, am I correct in assuming that only the three users in the original complaint were checked, and not Respecteveryone, Chinamanissue, and whatever users might be associated with the creation of or repeated reversions on the redlinked articles I added to the report?

Finally, is the case closed given this evidence, or can other circumstantial evidence be given to show (any of) the users are the same, given orther evidence that might be adduced?

Please answer me here, I will watch here. Thanks for your help.

μηδείς (talk) 02:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Longterm vandal is back

I thought I'd let you have a look at at User:122.102.100.14's recent work. I saw you gave them a one-year block just about a year ago. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• I went ahead and added another year. Please feel free to adjust one way or another. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

That's fine. I would personally made it for 3 years, for another year is also OK. –MuZemike 02:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

BrianZhukov

Hi, thanks for running the check on BrianZhukov (talk · contribs). To be honest, I found him so obvious I didn't even consider it necessary to ask for one. But it certainly can't hurt to have it confirmed. Odd, are checkusers so idle these days they find the time for unrequested checks? :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

As an added bonus, there was a range in there that I did block. –MuZemike 08:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Was about to go back and change that block. ceranthor 01:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Talk:The Fab Five (film)/GA1

I have responded to your concerns at Talk:The Fab Five (film)/GA1.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Possible IP sock of the abominable Wiki troll

2.219.215.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) & 2.124.196.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) seem to edit in similar patterns to the blocked IP of the abominable Wiki troll (2.124.196.36)... specifically, the edits to The Attitude Era, Bret Hart, and other wrestling related subjects. I bring this to your attention due to your close involvement with the continuous Sockpuppet investigation case of this particular vandal.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 04:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Got 'em, plus another confirmed sock account. –MuZemike 05:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Whoa, good eye.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 05:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

You might also want to take a look at We're all depressed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and A bit more enthusiastic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Note their similar editing pattern to UK music subjects (as previous abominable Wiki troll socks showed) as well as wrestling related subjects. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 19:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Got both, plus another one. I have hardblocked 213.107.103.118 (talk · contribs) for 5 years (given that it came off a 1-year hardblock), which is in effect an open proxy-type block. –MuZemike 19:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, good eye.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 20:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Sock alert?

• Hey MZ, mind helping to look into Mightyocean (talk · contribs) on Talk:Indian Navy#Discussion on the usage of the term "Invasion of Goa" over "Liberation of Goa", I was getting a hunch he might be Chanakyathegreat (talk · contribs), who was checked and confirmed by you in a previous SPI. Please tell me if I should start an SPI on him as well, thanks and best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 05:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

(Even though "recent" here meant over 1 year ago) Don't bother, it's fairly obvious it's a block-evading sock; I went ahead and blocked. –MuZemike 05:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

•  Looks like a duck to me... kind of funny the socks always give off a bad smell like the real sock in our daily life, eh? Thanks bunch. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 05:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

• MZ, he's back again on that talk page using another sock "Lurkingsub (talk · contribs)". Also, do you mind semi-PP the article for the time being? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 14:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a little early for that. Let's see what happens. –MuZemike 15:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for quick response, and how about helping us below? Or is it too much to ask? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 16:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Help?

• Hello again MZ, I was told to ask you for help on WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Jeneral28. Mind taking a look? Thanks again, best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 08:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what else to add that Tnxman didn't (as far as CU is concerned, anyways). I mean, use the behavioral evidence there! From a quick look, they seem to be related, but I haven't looked too much into detail. –MuZemike 18:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

• So in that case, is it a go or a no go to block Foxhound66 then? He's been using his latest account to attack the community and other editors by writing it down on his user page on more than one occasion, this is something his previous account Jeneral28 had been doing until he got blocked the first time round. Thoughts? Or is there a better better idea than to let us suffer his potshots again? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 21:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Quote

• Eric Cartman: "I will kick you in the nuts!"(1) Now I know where all this originated from... --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 04:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Indian Navy Duck talk

• Hi MZ! The guy you've banned - Chanakyathegreat (talk · contribs), the IP sock of his new sock is back again on that talk page, time to semi-PP? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 16:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've given the talk page a 3-day semi-protection, but I don't know how effective it will be. His disruption seems infrequent enough to semi-protect but yet frequent enough to be really annoying. –MuZemike 20:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• Well, I try not to give a fuck about it too but he is quite persistent in the sense of an annoying little bastard, as you've experienced. TBH, I don't know if WP:RBI should be applied in his case. MZ, whenever I help clean up the page of Indian Navy, the Indian-POV pusher(s) complains that I'm Anti-India and when I do so for the page of Pakistan Navy, the Pakistani-POV pusher(s) will say that I'm Anti-Pakistan. Question now being... how can I be both Anti-India and Anti-Pakistan at the very same time??? Then it occured to me that it is because I'm being NPOV. I really hope that's a good thing. Thanks and by the way, you're doing a meaningful job. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 22:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Continuations of Socks?

• Miasma theory (edit history)
• Hello again, MZ. TBH, I really hate to trouble you but it seems that I have a knack for sniffing out socks. On the aformentioned article page, I first notice this guy → Earlym.group1 (talk · contribs) ← and reported him to UAA after he admitted to me that he is editing on behalf of a group on his discussion page. He was later blocked indef by Orangemike. Almost right after that, a battalion of socks appear out of nowhere and resume the same shite where he left off. They are as follows: 1.) Ericshinshin (talk · contribs), 2.) Hermione0826 (talk · contribs), and 3.) Xflash96 (talk · contribs). A previously left out editor Lo Ximiendo (talk · contribs) might well be another sock. While 2 other anon IPs are traced by me to Taiwan's capital city Taipei, with one of them being a open IP from a Uni. Well, I have to stop here... really need to go catch some zleep now, will catch you again later. Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 06:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Possible Fragments of Jade sock puppet

An anonymous IP made an incivil statement about me on an edit summary of theirs ([22]) for Silent Hill: Downpour and, judging from the type of the insult, which is a totally baseless claim, and a recent edit which involved addition of unsourced content (which was later reintroduced sourced), I suspect this IP is a sock puppet of banned user Fragments of Jade, who, through sock puppet Yomiel, was involved about 3-4 months ago in a dispute over Silent Hill. Yomiel was eventually blocked daily for edit-warring, then reported on the administrators' noticeboard for persistent incivil behavior towards me, despite multiple requests from me to stop doing so, and was finally permanently banned by you for being a sock puppet. I believe you remember Fragments of Jade, as I saw a comment of yours indicating that you had already encountered him/her at the time of Yomiel's ban. Is a CheckUser possible? Golden Sugarplum (talk) 09:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

 Inconclusive at this point; there needs to be more to indicate a connection here, I'm afraid. –MuZemike 11:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Socks

Hello, MuZemike. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Tothwolf (talk) 16:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Suspected sock

Hi. I was wondering if you could investigate User:Danirijeka and User:No such user. It struck me as odd that two Serbian editors would both vote to keep an Italian infobox province, when one of them has not edited in ages. Can you check? Its important because of vote stacking at TFD to sway the result.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Another possible IP of The abominable Wiki troll

I came across this particular IP on the Robert Maxwell article and found a clear edit pattern to the previous sock accounts.

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

Note the edits to UK and wrestling related subjects. The IP also seems to originate from the UK area and falls in the same range as the last three identified IPs (2.124.196.36 2.124.196.31 2.219.215.248) ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 01:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Just blocked by Hersfold. Sorry for the heads up, but I thought it might be worth looking into.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 01:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: Anthem of joy

Well, I can't say that I'm not amused by Anthem of joy's block as a sock. I guess I should have suspected something when he was declaring sources that have long been accepted as reliable were suddenly unreliable and not independent because they were specialized. But what tipped you off that he may have been a sockpuppet? I can barely keep up with the few that occasionally inflict themselves on the anime/manga articles within the past couple of months. Also, what will this do to all of the AfDs that he initiated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFarix (talk • contribs) 17:47, 14 June 2011

I spotted a familiar pattern to User:Anthem of joy's edits. A comparison of Special:Contributions/Anthem of joy and Special:Contributions/Claritas will begin to show some of it. He also did the same thing with Transformers-related articles. --Tothwolf (talk) 17:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I had begun to suspect AoJ was a sock, but I'd had no idea whose. Thanks to both MuZemike and Tothwolf. Hobit (talk) 18:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

You may want to check into User:HominidMachinae as a possible sock. Since the account's creation in March, it has mostly been involved in AfDs, Prods, and speedy deletions. —Farix (t | c) 18:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Almost certainly an experienced user, but not clear if a sock. Hobit (talk) 20:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

If of Claritas, I don't think it quite fits behaviorally. At least, he's doing stuff that Claritas wouldn't do, such as NewPage patrolling. –MuZemike 21:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

AoJ actually did some fairly nice work too. In fact I've commented below about one of his articles... Hobit (talk) 01:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

There does appear to something fishy about HominidMachinae but with an edit count <400 or so it is hard to pin him down. While striking AoJ's !votes, I noticed some overlap in these type of AfDs [23]. I also saw this (also this). That said, this is more of an exact match... What do you think, MuZemike? --Tothwolf (talk) 03:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I just wish I could have done something sooner because he has left us with quite a mess. I had been watching him since early May but I couldn't figure out where I had seen his behavioural patterns before. There is a related discussion about Claritas in the AN/I archives here. --Tothwolf (talk) 01:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

As for his AFDs, if it looks like he has made a significant impact in the outcomes of those discussions, then I would first get the closing admins to take another look at those before going directly to deletion review over them. The same applies with any other discussions apart from AFDs. –MuZemike 21:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I think I saw someone mentioning User:Sergeant Cribb as another possible sock, but I am not so sure; however, making similar arguments about using WP:IAR makes me suspcious. [24] [25] BOZ (talk) 12:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not User:Claritas. More here. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Adamah?

Hi, Could you explain this move [26]? I'm assuming it has to do with being created by a sock. Could you tell me what issue you see or want done before it goes back to mainspace? Just a check that the sources are good and support the article or something else? Hobit (talk) 01:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The move was simple: it was a userfied page from an account of a banned user. It's better to move it to the incubator rather than leaving it to collect dust where it was and also likely become forgotten. I really didn't do any check to see if it was good to go back into the mainspace, so I moved it to the incubator until it can be reviewed. But if you want, I can probably review it real quick. –MuZemike 20:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Unblock request of Sasumura Toshikaze

Hello MuZemike. Sasumura Toshikaze (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards, Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

It's actually an autoblock caused by a checuser rangeblock. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Took care of it, I gave the user IPBE. Definitely unrelated to the socks on the range. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Wizards DYK

Hi Mike, I've got a suggestion for you here. Cheers! SFB 17:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I tweaked it just a little bit, but I like it. –MuZemike 20:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

webOS version history page?

Hi, upon visiting the webOS page here, I noticed that the version history section is taking up quite a bit of space in the article. I was thinking of moving that content into a new article webOS version history, however, Wikipedia informed me that it had been previously deleted for copyright infringing reasons. Do you think a year later that webOS is ready for its own version page? I was thinking of moving the table to a separate page, as well as writing up an intro and various things, perhaps fancy up the table as well. However, I wasn't sure if I should undertake it if there are still good reasons as to keeping the page deleted.. Thank you for your time in reading my post. Have a nice day! :) Kiranerys-talk 09:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

One more thing to add for consideration, I'm going to test out creating the article in my userspace, so that way, I can make a better case for a separate page if its all fancy and awesome. :P Kiranerys-talk 09:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

You might be interested...

...to know that we have a user What links Here (talk · contribs) who's been busy creating articles on barely-notable English villages, and who now knows how to use reflinks despite having only made 22 edits. Seems suspiciously similar to Criteria for speedy deletion (talk · contribs) to me. Could you look into it please? Alzarian16 (talk) 16:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Humor

Your checkuser log entry at 17:27, 14 June 2011 made me laugh. :) TNXMan 15:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no entry there, and I also can't recall putting anything remotely humorous in the log recently. –MuZemike 20:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

17:27, 14 June 2011, MuZemike got IP addresses for MuZemike (talk | contribs | block) (Possible sock of User:Claritas) TNXMan 18:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Tamimo, et al

I wonder if you'd mind taking a glance at this[27] if you can find a spare moment. Thank you! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The sock was blocked, but they didn't check for other possible socks; or if they did, they didn't say so. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

A new sock of User:HVJAIN just popped up

Look at the edits of User:Cleardata: talk about the quacking! --Orange Mike | Talk 20:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Possible problem developing

User:Racepacket has made a comment on my user page that I removed: [28]

On the review page he is questioning nearly everything and I am suspicious that he intends to argue the review and be as passive aggresive as possible. I am pausing the review that I began last night and am seeking advise as to whether it should proceed with a new reviewer or be quick declined for pressuring the reviewer for a time limit or just completely ignore him all together. I find that by interacting with certain individuals, constructive and civil discourse is not always possible in a review and that many find that questioning as much as possible discourages a reviewer from further fault finding to keep it simpler. I will follow the advise of you on this. You seem more experienced than I, by far in these matters and I know that by seeking the advise of the main project members and coordinators that I get the correct answers!--Amadscientist (talk) 20:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

It appears this member has some arbitration pending and may have some issues to deal with. I don't see how this behavior helps but I don't wish to add to his problems WITHOUT proper justification. Advice in this matter is actually pretty important now and will wait on the review until I here back from you or gain advise from admin.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I feel it is best to add the article back to nomination.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I have renominated it, although we could have solicited a replacement reviewer using the 2ndopinion option. The article has been awaiting a review since April 30. I am not trying to cause anyone, including Amadscientist discomfort, but when he questions why the quotation has square brackets, I responded. I have tried to address all of his concerns, but it does not look as though it will work out. I have also responded to his unusual note at WT:GAN. Thank you for your understanding. Racepacket (talk) 02:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

It was placed through 2 reviewer opinion and the template didn't correctly show and gave an optional template to use which I did. You altered that template so you could be the nominating member. I see that as trophy collecting in that you feel the need to be the GA nominator even though you are not even the main contributor. I do see that as trophy collecting. But I wash my hands of this situation. I am disappointed by your maneuvering, finger pointing and blame game to distract from your inappropriate behavior. Happy editing.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

This has spiralled out of control. I may never be able to do a review now that is trusted, agreed on or believed regardless of whether they are correct or not simply for not passing articles in the past. I am accused of quick declines even when I leave a full detailed list. I feel it is in the best interest of the project for me to depart. I have been point blank told that editors feel I am unfriendly and uncooperative for not passing articles even when they too are unfriendly and uncooperative themselves. I do not understand the GA nom guidelines or the GA review policy. Not all of my reviews have been dealt with in this manner. I can only take responsibility for my own actions and not the actions of others and this really does allow the remaining editors the chance to do their work without my being a distraction. Good luck and I hope one day to be able to return, but as this is clearly not working out for all involved it is the best answer.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Wizards & Warriors X: The Fortress of Fear

Materialscientist (talk) 00:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

FYI

More ItsLassieTime - I thought I'd let you know in case you hadn't seen it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Per this edit, I took Olivia Shakespear to FA and it passed. So it would have to go to FAR instead. But I think it's fine, because I took out all their edits months ago. I wouldn't object if you were to rev-del all of 56** edits. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 11:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, that's fine. As long as the questionable content isn't in there, that's all I care about right now. –MuZemike 13:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

webOS

Hey, I got your message about the webOS version history thing, and yeah, I agree. Thanks for responding. :) Kiranerys-talk 09:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Petey Peteler

User:Petey Peteler - quack. Off2riorob (talk) 09:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Got it, plus the range. –MuZemike 10:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. That will slow him down, easy to spot anyways, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 10:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Petey Petenez - add one. Off2riorob (talk) 10:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for hitting the range. If I'd noted you were around I wouldn't have gone to SPI. Dougweller (talk) 10:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bd clark 07

Thank you for clearing up the sockmaster. Goes back further than I thought. During my discussion with Tnxman307, these accounts came up. I'm not sure where they fit in. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Got 3 more of them, and yes, they're all socks of Bd clark 07. –MuZemike 09:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I re-tagged those accounts. I may have found some more. I added it to the SPI page. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again for checking those. I'm not sure why I'm so lucky (?) in stumbling across this guy. I guess that he just has bad timing by editing when I happen to be looking. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 00:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Many of them are old, so I don't know how you're stumbling upon them, but you are. –MuZemike 00:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

All a matter of timing, I guess. I saw VaporeonDrifblim9 through RC patrolling. The use of the trailing number was rather odd, so I looked in the list of users for accounts starting with VaporeonDrifblim and there they were. I did the same thing for some of the accounts that you found in the sleeper check and I found a few more accounts. Doing a bit of searching with the advanced search feature in user namespace has produced one new account with the same style of content. I just blocked and tagged them all instead of filing another SPI. I figured you might be sick of me by now. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 00:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Block question

Hey MuZemike--do you know which block was being evaded here? I'm chatting with Anna Frodesiak (you are welcome to join, here). She has started a sock category, Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 98.82.167.40, and is keeping an impressive record, User:Anna Frodesiak/Black sandbox. I've dealt with some of this before (as an editor), back in the days when Neutralhomer and I had some discussions over notable staff and such, and at the time we did at least agree that the slogans and titles and all were unencyclopedic. I remove them when I run into them, but I didn't know we have an apparent OCD editor sticking it back in, apostrophes and all. Your help would be greatly appreciated--and if you could respond at Anna's talk page, that'd be great. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 03:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• Left you a question at User_talk:Anna_Frodesiak#A_simple_plan. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

TV station vandal

We've come up with a simple plan. Please see User:Anna Frodesiak/Black sandbox. Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks good. I approve of it. –MuZemike 15:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

LouisPhilippeCharles sock

Why was this case archived before any action was taken? The vandalism continues. FactStraight (talk) 17:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I did. I went ahead and blocked the IP. I'm afraid if he continues, all those articles may need to be protected. –MuZemike 18:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but several more of LouisPhilippeCharles's socks have now been added to his SPI list and need to be blocked and his edits reverted. I don't think the articles need to be protected yet -- there's a better alternative. His vandalism is proliferating, probably because his college in Britain has finished classes for the summer, but what is needed is that as soon as his socks are discovered they are blocked and all of his edits are instantly reverted. That will, eventually, teach him that his efforts to force Wikipedia to accept his editing is futile because no matter how much time he spends adding edits, they will all be reverted upon discovery. FactStraight (talk) 20:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Another one

He never goes away... no sooner do you block one Crouch, Swale sock than the next appears. Epiphyllum 7 (talk · contribs) has started three pages on English villages since its first edit two hours ago, understands how Requested Move works and made this edit to CSD. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Got him. Also  Confirmed is Wigginton (talk · contribs). –MuZemike 20:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Page Vandalism

A few unregistered users have been putting false information on The Legend of Spyro: Dawn of the Dragon page. Some of them didn't understand the ending of the game and keeps claiming that one of the main characters was still alive, but it's false, since that character sacrificed himself to save the title character and was seen as a spirit later at the end of the game until he was chosen by the Chronicler. May I request the game page to be semi-protected for a while, until the vandalism dies down? -- Aura24 (talk) 18:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a shame...

...that you had to redact most entertaining cartooney threat I have ever seen. That one rivaled the ones posted by spammers back in my NANAE days. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 19:15, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Meetup image

Be advised that File:Chicago Meetup 4 - Muzemike.jpg is up at commons and at the Wikipedia:Meetup/Chicago 4 page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:42, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

A nice little image but...

Just a note that the edit to your talk page that you made here causes those of us viewing WP at 1024X768 (which is still a commonly used monitor resolution) to have to side scroll to read the messages on your talk page. Hell, this might be a hint that I need a new monitor :) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I do know that, actually. If I can figure out how to make User:MuZemike/Menu more modular, then I should be able to fix that. –MuZemike 01:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Account

*Sigh!* I forgot the password and forgot to register an e-mail account for User:Ctjf83 2, so please block it so no one can hack it. I created User:Ctjf83 Alt instead. :) CTJF83 12:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

SPI closed rather quickly

Hi, re this SPI closure - I reopened it on the advice of the blocking admin, see here. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:41, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding this...

...[29] at least give the guy credit for spelling my username correctly. Also, if he were to stop and think about it, if I'm an "f'ing" anything, then I'm at least getting some action. If there's one thing we morons know how to do, that's it. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

KBlott sockpuppet

I was the one who set up the sockpuppet investigation using MuzeMarc as the sockpuppetmaster (I just chose the last one, there was no logic there on my part). You moved it to KBlott as the master. I'm sorry to have put you through all that work, but is there a way that I might have known that there was a different master? Or did you just know? KBlott was around 8 or 9 months ago, so I wouldn't have connected the dots. If there's some magic way to do it, I'd appreciate knowing. Thanks. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

It was the blatant socking, personal attacks (i.e. accusing others of "denialism"), focus on HIV-related articles, and underlying IP information that gave it all away. Also, I've pretty much blocked all this user's socks, so far. –MuZemike 07:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh good. I thought there was some method to tell. BTW, are socks getting dumber? It wasn't like this took much investigative skills on my part to figure it out. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Could you pleae take a look at this?

User talk:Tnxman307#Can these IPs be related?? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 08:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Fish

Just curious why you think there will be more of this. I'm working on an edit filter to help slow down some of this nonsense, any info you can send my way would be appreciated. 28bytes (talk) 21:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Because he's done that several times before, and I'm certain he'll do it again and again and again. Those two diffs on the ANI page is a good start right there, and you can restrict it to the template-space, so you'll have a bit of latitude. –MuZemike 21:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I tested a new filter against those diffs and it seems to catch them well, with no false positives. I'll keep an eye on it to make sure it doesn't cause any collateral damage. 28bytes (talk) 22:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kandathil

Could you please take a look at this. There are two new socks of this user. Thanks, — Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 05:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I put out the CU results there. –MuZemike 05:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. You have put the result as likely. Is this result only for User:Notemake or for both User:Notemake and User:Shijutkr? — Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 05:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Hold on, there might be some more stuff here. Let me look into this some more. –MuZemike 05:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Socks!

• Hi MZ, sorry for the attention grabbing title... I've tagged User:Inetpuppy as an obvious sock of User:Inetpup who was BANNED for operating a large sockfarm but I can't find the SPI for it, he has since removed the sock template after confessing on WP:Articles for deletion/K-T Line that he is indeed Inetpup. Any help would be appreciated, thanks. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 07:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• Can't get any more obvious than that. Blocked. –MuZemike 07:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• I know but the question remains, since Inetpuppy is a sock of Inetpup but the SPI is missing, he is in turn blocked as the sock of User:FuturePil()t and the SPI is missing as well. FWIW, I've been scratching my head since yesterday, would you please enlighten me? Thanks again. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 07:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Carobonator

Hi MuZemike. I was just talking Jeske_Couriano on IRC and he said that you are the admin that was able to help with the sockpuppeteer I've been dealing with. I just wanted to say thanks for taking the time to do that. It's been wearing on me and this will definitely help. Thanks again! OlYeller^Talktome 22:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like he's back. Here's where he's placed a db on the same article again [30]. Here's where he made his usual buffer edit with hyphens [31]. OlYeller^Talktome 19:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind. Looks like you're on top of it. Much thanks. OlYeller^Talktome 19:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

User talk:LongLiveReagan

I think I see a second account there, but the contributions are unrelated. What do you think? Cheers! TNXMan 18:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't look like, either; the editing patterns do not match up at all. –MuZemike 19:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Also what I thought. Thanks. TNXMan 19:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

false positive on abuse?

I've been seeing a bug with Twinkle where pages I'm tagged were getting added to my watchlist despite me using the option meant to stop that. The extra pages I've been tagging and working on as part of new pages partol and backlog work were diluting the pages I was actually interested in watching. To keep them separate, I started a new account User:Not_your_siblings'_deletionist and started using it. I'll admit that I failed to WP:SOCK#NOTIFY and picked a WP:USERNAME that might be considered trolling. After two edits (adding references to pages from the back of the unreferenced backlog) my account was blocked for abuse. I've can see no evidence of any abuse by myself and none appears to have been given. None of my recent edits appear to have been reverted (although my edit of Berleşti was partly rolled back, and appears not to have been my best work). My reading of WP:SOCK suggests that there are valid times to use sock puppets and even valid times to use sock puppets without notification. Merely using sock puppets without notification cannot thus be abuse. I would like to see: (a) The blocklog edited/amended to clarify lack of abuse and (b) The message on my talk page edited/amended to clarify lack of abuse. Alternatively: (c) a link to the edit or edit(s) which constitute abuse. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I can unblock the account (we don't have the ability to edit block logs), but that's all I can do. Please clearly label the account as an alternative account so that others know of the account. –MuZemike 16:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AlexBrownGarcia

I've added an IP address that's just appeared on the same articles. Dougweller (talk) 08:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

And after he started quacking, creating Alex Brown-Garcia (illusionist), I blocked him. Can you do something about the IP range, he left a mess to clearup? Can you tell me about the technical issues? Dougweller (talk) 13:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Rangeblocked. –MuZemike 19:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 05:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 June newsletter

We are half way through 2011, and entering the penultimate round of this year's WikiCup; the semi-finals are upon us! Points scored in the interim (29/30 June) may be counted towards next round, but please do not update your submissions' pages until the next round has begun. 16 contestants remain, and all have shown dedication to the project to reach this far. Our round leader was Casliber (submissions) who, among other things, successfully passed three articles through featured article candidates and claimed an impressive 29 articles at Did You Know, scoring 555 points. Casliber led pool D. Pool A was led by Wizardman (submissions), claiming points for a featured article, a featured list and seven good article reviews, while pool C was led by Eisfbnore (submissions), who claimed for two good articles, ten articles at Did You Know and four good article reviews. They scored 154 and 118 respectively. Pool B was by far our most competitive pool; six of the eight competitors made it through to round 4, with all of them scoring over 100 points. The pool was led by Hurricanehink (submissions), who claimed for, among other things, three featured articles and five good articles. In addition to the four pool leaders, 12 others (the four second places, and the 8 next highest overall) make up our final 16. The lowest scorer who reached round 4 scored 76 points; a significant increase on the 41 needed to reach round 3. Eight of our semi-finalists scored at least twice as much as this.

No points were awarded this round for featured pictures, good topics or In the News, and no points have been awarded in the whole competition for featured topics, featured portals or featured sounds. Instead, the highest percentage of points has come from good articles. Featured articles, despite their high point cost, are low in number, and so, overall, share a comparable number of points with Did You Know, which are high in number but low in cost. A comparatively small but still considerable number of points come from featured lists and good article reviews, rounding out this round's overall scores.

We would again like to thank Jarry1250 (submissions) and Stone (submissions) for invaluable background work, as well as all of those helping to provide reviews for the articles listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Please do keep using it, and please do help by providing reviews for the articles listed there. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews generally at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup.

Two final notes: Firstly, please remember to state your participation in the WikiCup when nominating articles at FAC. Finally, some WikiCup-related statistics can be seen here and here, for those interested, though it appears that neither are completely accurate at this time. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

SaturdayMight1000

You deleted SaturdayMight1000, why? I created The Saturday Third Studio Album in my user space. With Admin Lil-unique1 helping me! There was alot of work put into that you go and delete it! Thanks Alot! --92.30.192.7 (talk) 18:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

You are evading your block, LadyLashes, and as such, I have blocked your IP. If you feel I have made a mistake, follow the instructions I have placed at User talk:SaturdayMight1000; as such I am blocking this IP address. –MuZemike 18:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

For those others wondering, I did not delete the article outright, but instead moved it to the article incubator under Wikipedia:Article incubator/The Saturdays' third album, as a userfied article on an indefinitely blocked user's page will do nothing except sit there and likely indefinitely. The incubator helps mitigate that problem. –MuZemike 18:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Stuartyeates

Hi the above user is currently using another account User:Not your siblings' deletionist. I noticed you had left a message on his talk page about using Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. was going to report but not sure if he is braking the rules. Could you have a look for me please. Warburton1368 (talk) 10:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Sherman3D

Hi, MuZemike! Thank you very much for responding to my 30 June 2011 deletion review at http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review I am so glad I found an admin who writes about games and JRPGs too for that matter! I am sure you can understand my frustrations when my article on Sherman3D and my picture of Arevan was deleted when I got permission from the game developers to write about them. As a RPG Maker game fan, I have done them a great disservice because I can't seem to re-post an article about Sherman3D or re-upload an image of Arevan. I hope they are not universally banned. I am not sure if it is because of some previous spam posters but I did my research and got permission to write about these companies and their games. I don't think it is fair that I got my postings/uploads banned because I fixed them as soon as I can and I really did get their permission to post them. My only consolation is that my article on Aldorlea Games was posted without problems and the developer is very happy. I was planning to write articles on more indie RPG Maker companies and games but I am a bit afraid that it might cause these independent developers irreversible damage on Wikipedia now. Please do help me as I am sure you will understand that these developers of games which bring back the nostalgia of those classic JRPGs should be supported! Thank you very much, MuZemike! Alphakimori (talk) 19:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

First off, you're welcome; I try to help when I can. As far as the image is concerned, which is File:Arevan logo.jpg, we may be able to help you here, assuming you did get permission from the developers to use it. Here is what you need to do there:

1. Clarify that they wish to release the image under the Creative Commons ShareAlike (CC-BY-SA) license; the "idiot's version" of the rights behind this license is located here. They must do that, as merely specifying "for Wikipedia use only" is not good enough, as we are a free content encyclopedia, which consists of material that can be shared by anyone.
2. If they agree to release the logo under a free content license, have them send an email with the content listed in the black box here (replacing the greyed out fields with their information on the image) to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org.
3. Once they have sent that email, go to Wikimedia Commons (a communal free media repository, in which Wikipedia uses many of its images) and upload the image there. After uploading, anywhere on that image page, add {{OTRS pending}} so that others know that confirmation of the license verification is ongoing; it shouldn't take very long at all.

Hope this helps a little more. If you have any other questions, let me know. –MuZemike 21:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the help on Sherman3D and Arevan, MuZemike! Before I bug the developer of Arevan further, I would just like to check with you on why I can't seem to upload the Arevan logo.jpg through the toolbox upload form at http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Upload anymore. The developer has given it the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license as can be seen at the bottom of the page at: http://www.overcloud9.com/ so anybody should be able to upload it to Wikipedia now. I spoke too soon about Aldorlea Games. It has been marked with not meeting the general notability guideline. I have gotten the developer to provide me links to more websites referring to the Aldorlea portal but before I spend my time adding them, I am wondering if that is enough to establish notability and my contributions won't be deleted again. From the sheer number of RPG Maker games distributed by Aldorlea and other notable distributors like Big Fish Games distributing games created by Aldorlea (I provided the references), shouldn't it be considered notable? It is certainly notable enough among us RPG Maker fans after Amaranth Games. Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks again! Alphakimori (talk) 19:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Johnny Crow's Garden

Hi. I was looking for this, found it as a redlink from the author's article, and see that you deleted it last November as a G5, created by Susanne2009NYC (talk), one of innumerable socks of ItsLassieTime. I'm not familiar with how we treat G5 deletions, but whatever the author's sins in terms of socking, looking at the deleted article it seems good. WP:BAN#Edits by and on behalf of banned editors seems to suggest that though "the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert", good contributions need not be lost just because of their origin. Would you have any objection to my restoring this article? Regards, JohnCD (talk) 11:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have to object to it. The user is banned from here, and if we allow her creations to stand, then we might as well unban her completely. On top of that, ItsLassieTime's (and socks') edits have had considerable plagiarism/copyvio concerns; see Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/ItsLassieTime for everything on that. –MuZemike 00:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

OK. Maybe I will get around to writing it from scratch, one day. Thanks. JohnCD (talk) 06:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

AOCJedi SPI case

Thanks for the super-swift action! --BelovedFreak 08:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

You warned this guy not to use socks and he created another one

You warned him not to abuse socks again or you'd block him. [32] That was on the same day he created another one. [33] He then announced on that user page who he was an account of, two days after your warning. His first edit was 02:04, 27 June 2011 (diff | hist) Build to stock[[34]]. Build to stock sounds like Build to sock. I doubt it a coincidence. Dream Focus 07:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

His original talk page before he redirected it to his main account's talk page, had only one message, that from the now banned Odiabot. This bot posted the same message in a short period of time on different accounts which I believe are probably socks. [35] Some have just one edit, and others have a few more. They are often found in the same articles working together. Dream Focus 07:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Please see User talk:MuZemike/Archive 8#false positive on abuse? (Warburton1368, please also read that). He informed me that he was going to use it as an alternative account, similar to TheParasite (talk · contribs) as an alternate account of North8000 (talk · contribs), in which from my understanding was recently determined to be an OK usage of alternate accounts. After informing me of the intent and willingness to label the account, I went ahead and unblocked it. Also, I don't think there is any connection to Odiabot and Stuartyeates, as it looks like someone unrelated who was using an unauthorized bot. –MuZemike 07:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I can confirm that Stuartyeates (and Not your siblings' deletionist, my alt) have no relationship to any of the other accounts mentioned here. Not your siblings' deletionist (talk) 08:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Still sounds dodgy what ever way you look at it. If there has been multiple usage accounts abused in the past and they continue to be made then it needs looked at.Warburton1368 (talk) 09:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

To my knowledge, this user has not abused any multiple accounts in the past, which was why, instead of blocking as I would normally do in repeat or egregious socking cases, I chose to warn instead. –MuZemike 18:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

38.108.87.20

Just FYI regarding User:38.108.87.20 (which is blocked from editing) I found myself using that IP address earlier this evening; it is a McDonald's offering free WiFi in Saskatoon, Canada (note [36]). Now that I'm back home my editing abilities are back to normal, so no action is necessary :) -- Limulus (talk) 03:15, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: Kiwi Bomb

I apologize if you have already addressed this, but could you talk about what your statement summarizing the CU results in regards to this account is supposed to mean and how it should be interpreted? Thanks in advance. Viriditas (talk) 21:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I thought I said I agreed with the other two CUs (Tnxman307 and Amalthea) on the CU results – mainly that we couldn't conclude anything. I don't know what needs to be clarified there. –MuZemike 21:25, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Forgive me, but all I see at the SPI is the comment "Sorry, nothing there.". Should I assume that you are referring to another discussion? Keep in mind, Wikipedia appears to be experiencing caching problems, so it is possible that I am unable to view the most recent version of a page. Viriditas (talk) 21:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I thought you were referring to another case :| I checked there, and there were no other possible accounts to be found. –MuZemike 21:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I understand. Would you say your investigation was hampered by the lack of additional accounts to check against? For example, let's say the account had not socked for at least the last year. Your CU would return a negative unless you had good behavioral evidence (and or UA/IP info) linking the two. What I'm saying is, the result of "no other possible accounts" is due to the lack of other accounts offered in the original SPI to check against. In other words, we are going to need good behaviorial evidence to link KB to another account, correct? Viriditas (talk) 21:45, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you summed it up fairly accurately; I mean, there is nothing else currently to go on, so I cannot possibly conclude anything else. –MuZemike 21:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your time. It's just the very first edit from this user amounts to a giant "Fuck you Wikipedia, I'll troll you so hard you'll be checkusering the checkusers when I'm done." The addition of the Banksy image on the user page and choice of user name literally speaks volumes. Viriditas (talk) 23:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Sugar Supply!

This should give you enough energy to spread some wikilove yourself! :) The Helpful One 23:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

ummm ..

you start this, and you don't even notify the poor kid? ... just .... just, wow dude. — Ched :  ?  01:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Guilty by association, I get it. –MuZemike 01:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, I wasn't even calling for any block, but I understand doing nothing about it makes you just as complicit as those doing the atrocities. The same is applied to all Americans back in the 1940s who knowingly did nothing about the extermination of the Jews by the Nazis in Europe during that time. –MuZemike 01:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh I know you weren't one of the head hunters in the case. That's not what I was implying at all. I agree that you've tried to remain completely objective, and I understand that you were just trying to get a resolution to the issue. It's just that you really should have notified BarkingMoon of the thread as soon as it started is all I was saying. Sorry for not clarifying it. — Ched :  ?  02:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

No, you were perfectly fine to imply that it was my fault. I should have known better, and so should have the person who did not notify him when the SPI case started. –MuZemike 03:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Newsletter

Thanks for delivering the WPVG newsletter! =) Don't forget that newsletter deliveries should ideally be signed with a timestamp so they can be picked up by archiving bots. Even a hidden comment timestamp would work. Cheers, –xeno^talk 13:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of sock puppets talk page

Is there a need to keep the material at User talk:Proud Serbian Chetnik deleted, normal procedure is to redirect the page but leave the material in history for later evidence unless determined otherwise by ARBCOM or OS per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Administrators_instructions#Sock_puppets_.28registered_accounts.29. I redirected but didn't want to undelete incase there was sensitive material as I noticed that a couple of items were done as revdels. I understand that some of the material was extremely offensive but I think that we need to err on the side of keeping the evidence available to non-admins since socks have a tendency to reappear.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 10:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I would've RevDeleted all the edits in question because they were extreme racist personal attacks. I considered it a little easier to selectively delete everything as opposed to RevDeleting over 3/4 the talk page's history. –MuZemike 15:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Revision History of some articles

Hi MuZemike. You recently deleted items from the revision history of some articles due to vandalism by an anonymous editor. Out of curiosity, what sort of edits were made to these pages? I could be paranoid, but an anonymous IP editor (traced back to what might be a proxy server) who shows up and edits the article of a Ten-Most-Wanted fugitive along with the articles of the city in which his crime occurred and the high school that he attended piques my interest. -Nick^talk 20:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

They were egregious personal attacks and harassment directed at multiple editors. –MuZemike 20:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Some pages that BonjourLaLa created

I'm going to restore some of the pages created by BonjourLaLa that you recently deleted as G5. The ones I'm restoring are the ocean liner ones in article and template space, that, violation of ban or not, were improvements over what previously existed. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

So it ended up being only two: Kaiser class ocean liner and Template:Imperator class ocean liners. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikilovecookies, inspired by ANI thread

		Cookies!
		Drmies has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. These are here to show you some of my wikilove. Sure, these Oreos are a templated processed food, but they were applied by hand. And yes, I had to look at the template page to figure out the syntax, and revise four times, so you know how deep this thought of appreciation was. To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Suspected sockpuppet of Fragments of Jade

An IP repeatedly introduced in Silent Hill (video game) the same unsourced statements that Yomiel, a sockpuppet of banned user Fragments of Jade, introduced months ago and had led to a debate. The IP doesn't cooperate: I reverted the statements 3 times, but not a 4th, to avoid breaching 3RR. The statements are written in a way similar to the one in which Yomiel's statements were written. The IP also made an edit to Earl Cain, an article over which Yomiel had debated with Kaguya-chan, a user whom I collaborate with on Silent Hill-related articles. I placed a suspected sockpuppet template on the IP's talk page, but the IP blanked the talk page. I believe you remember that I had detected another suspected sockpuppet of FoJ (68.41.17.53) some time ago and asked you a CheckUser, but evidence wasn't enough. Is a CheckUser possible now? Golden Sugarplum (talk) 06:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't look like FoJ from a quick look, at least that's not his/her/its usual IP range. Nothing is adding up there, I'm afraid. –MuZemike 06:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Jumping to conclusions is what it is. Golden Sugarplum, you have shown a problem with this. Aside from assuming I must be sockpuppet for agreeing with antoher person, you assumed bad faith. Isn't that also against Wiki rules? If you have an issue with an edit, why not talk about it on the talk page of the user who made it, instead of reverting it or starting an edit war? On the Silent Hill 2 page, you reverted my edits repeatedly for reasons you never explained. I've asked you several times what "original research" you're talking about, but you've yet to answer. 76.120.167.187 (talk) 06:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

However, this IP is most certainly FoJ and has been appropriately blocked by another administrator. The WP:BOOMERANG striketh back. :) –MuZemike 07:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

To Fragments of Jade: I explained the reasons in the edit summaries. I wrote "unsourced", "original research", and "POV", what else needs explanation and discussion on the talk page? These words speak for themselves. Assuming bad faith is saying that someone edits in order to harm the encyclopaedia. I never said that you edit in order to harm Wikipedia. Months ago I said that you seem to be editing with good intentions, but this is not enough. The rules should be followed. I have no problem with you returning to Wikipedia, as long as you follow the rules and listen to advice from more experienced users. Someone had said in a conversation you were involved in long ago (sometime in 2008, I think) that it would be good if a more experienced user "adopted" you, which means that a user could act as your Wiki-mentor.

To MuZemike: I very recently changed my user name. Bear this in mind to avoid confusing my edits with someone else's. Golden Sugarplum (talk) 07:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I would contest that there would need to be an unban proposal put up first, before this can even be considered; given the disruption caused by Yomiel in very short order (almost three simultaneous trips to ANI within 1 week's time IIRC), I would be reluctant in considering it. –MuZemike 04:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

More socks?

Hi MuZemike - my watchlist has been popping today. I would not surprised if at least one or more of these is an ILT sock:

• 1jamison1 (talk · contribs)
• Loopsnahoop (talk · contribs)
• Shadowdog1957 (talk · contribs)
• HistoryAAI (talk · contribs)

Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid they're all  Unrelated. –MuZemike 04:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Unblock request from an IP in range 78.147.0.0/16

Good day, just thought I would notify you that I handled an unblock request related to a rangeblock you made at User talk:78.147.214.167. I declined the unblock request and posted a link to the account creation tool, as per your block notice on the range. Just thought I would notify you to ensure I got it right. Thanks, --Taelus (talk) 09:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I think I know who that was; I won't say at the moment who, but that person clearly knows better than to do that. –MuZemike 12:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I Pakapshem

Hi MuZemike,

I saw you blocked Kushtrim as a sock of I Pakapshem. I don't presume to tell you your job, but in such situations isn't it usual to indef the sock (Kushtrim) and block the master for a certain length of time? Just wondering. Best, Athenean (talk) 06:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I assumed that the I Pakapshem account has been abandoned, and that he is not going back to that account. That's why I did the opposite there. –MuZemike 17:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Some help on new article and notability

Hi again, MuZemike! Thank you very much for your help in the deletion review of Sherman3D! :) Could I trouble you again to remove the new unreviewed article tag from Sherman3D after reviewing and also the notability tag from Aldorlea Games since many notable references were added? Much appreciated! Alphakimori (talk) 00:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I've made some fixes, along with removing the tag. I felt that the documentation of the Wikipedia article is irrelevant, so I removed that. Also, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Punctuation and footnotes, the inline citations need to be moved after the relevant punctuation, as it looks better that way. Hope that helps. –MuZemike 04:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

You are amazing, MuZemike! It definitely helped a lot! :) Is it possible to remove the notability tag from Aldorlea Games as well? I have just finished Laxius Force and probably moving on to Amaranth Games next! :) Alphakimori (talk) 11:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much

I return from a concert and see that you responded to my checkuser request. Thank you for doing a checkuser against Dantherocker1's sockpuppet. Even though you mentioned that "there's nothing else we can do to prevent this abuse", your checkuser blocks were still helpful. Very appreciated. NHRHS2010 the student pilot ✈ 13:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

IP Block

I see that you have blocked 78.147.0.0/16, that is big range of IPs from TalkTalk. Bihco (talk) 22:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I understand it's a big range, but it is also being abused bigtime by User:KnowIG. I just don't think there is another viable option, aside from semi, or even fully, protecting a bunch of tennis-related articles is more viable, which I am sure others would similarly protest. –MuZemike 04:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

FYI, I was able to split that rangeblock into two more manageable ones. All you needed to do was ask me nicely instead of doing what you did. I don't know why you decided to pick a fight with me, as I didn't do anything against you, but that was not needed. Regards, –MuZemike 18:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Island Monkey

Hello, MuZemike

I am unable to find anything in regard to User:Island Monkey's connection with User:Special Cases. I found this: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Special Cases/Archive but there is no sign of Island Monkey in it. Can you please explain a bit? Fleet Command (talk) 16:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Aside from the usual CU evidence (which was also conferred on another wiki), there is also this. –MuZemike 17:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I neither make head nor tail out of your link but I do understand that you have CU rights. That should be enough. But tell me: Can someone who is indefinitely blocked request to reduce his block period to 10 years with the promise that he won't commit his misconducts upon return? Fleet Command (talk) 12:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

That thread basically spells it out that they're clearly the same person. As far as your other query is concerned, you are going to have a much harder time convincing others to unblock him, given his long history of abusing multiple accounts. –MuZemike 18:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Extend Rangeblocks

As it seems you are experienced in this field, your !votes and comments are sought in my proposal here.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

You have new messages there.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Kung Fu Panda 2 (video game)

Can you give me a copy of the Kung Fu Panda 2 (video game) article at User:ColderPalace1925/Kung Fu Panda 2 (video game)? ColderPalace1925 (talk) 09:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NickSoroka

Per your April 20, 2011 comment here, I was wondering if the term "Dave Cote" is full-protected (since there have been subsequent recent re-creations of the AfD'ed subject by two IP-editors as seen here). Some of the ongoing activity on this AfD'ed subject since its original incarnation has been to somehow mangle the similarly-named articles about the Honeywell CEO, the theatre critic or the David Cote disambiguation page. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 18:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MrRohanM

Hey. Over on this case, you tagged BajiraoSingham as a sock of HVJAIN. I assume you meant to tag as MrRohanM, but I wanted to double check with you first. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Oops, I mis-tagged that one. Should be MrRohanM. –MuZemike 20:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

re ban of User:KnowlG

As you were the proposer of the above ban, and may be familiar with the case against KnowlG, I thought you might be interested in the post archival comment I made at WP:AN. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi there, thanks for blocking all those socks of MosesBeacon, it's much appreciated. You seem to have missed one though, Jenks24b (talk · contribs). Thanks again, Jenks24 (talk) 05:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Uncontroversial Obscurity

| the person who edited with that account is directed to contact the
| Arbitration Committee with the name of the new account they wish to
| use in place of Barong.

WP:AC/N#Motion regarding User:Barong

He did that. See also Xeno's edit summary at User:Uncontroversial Obscurity. Amalthea 13:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Meaning to say: undo that block, please. Amalthea 13:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not understanding something here. What about Il fugitivo (talk · contribs) and Hullabaloo in the Guava Orchard (talk · contribs)? Or did ArbCom miss the fact that they were blocked, too? –MuZemike 13:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

No, they were made aware of that. Amalthea 13:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Then why wasn't he allowed to keep one of those accounts, then, in accordance with the motion? Or am I to believe that both those accounts were also compromised? Something is not adding up, and I feel like ArbCom is sandbagging us here. –MuZemike 13:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Best I can tell and followed at the time before the respective revisions were suppressed, yes (not sure about Hullabaloo). See also User talk:Amalthea/Archive 6#Jack Merridew for more accounts. However, I have high hopes that this behavior will not continue. Amalthea 13:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

To my knowledge, we weren't notified of those accounts. We've been notified of this one [37]. –xeno^talk 13:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the clarification, Xeno. –MuZemike 17:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Great; now I have a block log on this account, too; If I swear really hard, can I have another? Uncontroversial Obscurity 13:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Likely not. And block logs don't matter for building an encyclopedia. Amalthea 13:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

NB: I can swear *really* well. And blocks are toxic to community building. I do thank you for seem to have dealt with more than I've looked at... Uncontroversial Obscurity 13:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, block logs do matter for building an encyclopedia. They become another stick to beat the editor with as soon as any conflict occurs. But leave that aside for now, I just want to thank all of you for the patience and kindnesses you've shown my friend. It is appreciated. --RexxS (talk) 13:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

SPI

SPI isn't my area of strength, so I wonder if someone who does know what is going on could take a look at User talk:James2132--SPhilbrickT 19:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.--SPhilbrickT 20:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

A-class assessment of Silent Hill (video game)

Your opinion is needed. Please check the bottom of the game's talk page. Golden Sugarplum (talk) 16:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

?

MuZemike, what do you make of this? Drmies (talk) 20:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

That account, as well as all the other recent one's in User:Raul654's page history, have blatantly busted autoconfirmed to vandalize. I'll check into it. –MuZemike 20:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

 Confirmed, along with about 20 other accounts (most were already blocked as VOAs), as Tile join (talk · contribs). –MuZemike 21:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thankss--I knew there was something to it, and I knew you'd know. Drmies (talk) 22:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 21:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Ipbreason-dropdown

Just a note that I undid your revision there. It broke my block box and pushed the right edge off the page! If this needs to be done or has been discussed elsewhere, please let me know, but I don't see why we can't keep the shortcuts (WP:SOAP, for example), instead of the full link. TNXMan 13:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Email

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

Nev1 (talk) 19:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

hard spaces

The wikilink software is able to handle hard spaces inside of the links without any issue.陣内_Jinnai 15:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I don't need to pipe them, then. –MuZemike 19:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Block DKBose

You blocked DKBose. the note read see contributions for evidence I saw nothing there. I am a newbie on this though I have 5k + edits. How does one prove that a particular account is a block? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shannon1488 and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Shannon1488. They were all  Confirmed by CheckUser as the same person as, hence the blocks. This is not the first time Shannon1488 has been abusing multiple accounts in this manner. –MuZemike 19:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Take your own time over this, someday tell me the nuts and bolts, if you wish of-course, how this goes about? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:CheckUser for more details. –MuZemike 16:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Unblock request- User talk:Cmichael1977

This user is caught in a rangeblock you placed. I'm not sure of the past history, but the range looks like it has been quiet for a few weeks. TNXMan 19:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks like it was taken care of. However, it doesn't look like the rangeblock was altered, nor was an IP block exemption granted (leaning towards the latter IMO). –MuZemike 22:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Austrian School

Hello!

I wanted to alert you to a possible edit war breaking out on the Austrian School page. The user BigK HeX is reversing edit without sourcing it properly and without discussing it on the talk page, despite the fact that there is a specific section for this particular edit. He is well known for his hostility towards the Austrian School, something he's never made any secret of, and should thus not be allowed to edit the article at all. Another reason for him being unqualified for the job is the fact that he doesn't know the first thing about the Austrian School. Could you please make him understand that WP rules apply to him as well? Misessus (talk) 15:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Could you please check the Austrian School talkpage? Lawrencekhoo an BigK HeX are trying to start an edit war. Misessus (talk) 16:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Article has been full-protected for 1 day until whatever dispute there is resolved. All editors are required to settle the issues at hand on Talk:Austrian School. –MuZemike 19:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Misessus (talk) 20:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Did you notice that the edit war started exactly when you lifted the protection of the article? There was no consensus, in fact the same argument had been going on before and was soapboxed. This is yet another example of WP-editors bullying through their own bigoted idea. BigK, LK and Charles have done it before. They remove sourced material and include false, unsourced material. Isn't there anything you can do or is this really how WP is supposed to work? Misessus (talk) 05:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

More video blogging vandalism

The semiprotection on the page has expired, and the same vandal/sockpuppet is back at it. He will not accept any number of references as proof, and I am really getting tired of reverting him. He seems to only be using IP addresses to edit, and his two edits since the expiration have been on different IP addresses. Can you semiprotect the page again? —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 16:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protected indefinitely. –MuZemike 19:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Hopefully, we won't have to deal with this again. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 17:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Rangeblock proposal

At this proposal and at User talk:28bytes#My rangeblock proposal, I'm requesting your replies and verdict on whether the proposal on IPv6 rangeblocks should be implemented. Thanks.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello

User talk:Amynan is back on here starting another edit war I was advised by another user that the stuff they are posting is not to be posted cause it is fan reviews and they want to sit here and say I'm vandalizing the page because I'm doing as I was being told by others. Also I believe that this 180.194.241.51 is a sock puppet of theirs. I figured since you were the one who got them last time you should know they are back on here doing the same thing again. JamesAlan1986 (talk-Contributes) 02:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC) http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Sparks_Fly_(song)&action=history. So you can see what I am talking about. JamesAlan1986 (talk-Contributes) 02:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Amynam

Back again with the same old tricks. ℥^nding·start 21:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

(Also with response to the above thread), user blocked 3 months; IPs also blocked. –MuZemike 21:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Vote (X) for Change

He's back [38]. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Mario96 filter

I more or less rewrote your Mario96 filter so that it matches up to his latest sock (see SPI case). I had a go at "optimizing" it for new users, but I seemed to have made it worse. Feel free to fix it. It has always been difficult for me to determine when things are optimal or not. See the filter history for the mess that I made trying to make it run faster. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks! I mean, the first phrase there is by far the most common, and one of my other concerns is that I'm not breaking the condition limits or anything. –MuZemike 19:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It picked up the first sock yesterday, so it seems to be doing the job okay. The condition limit doesn't seem to be a problem, though I like I said, that part of the edit filter is confusing to me. It doesn't seem to be very well documented. Or if it is, it is buried somewhere. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Rangeblock request

The range 125.115.0.0/15 seems to be producing nothing but spam and vandalism. Suggest two /16 rangeblocks.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I've opted for a semi-protection on Talk:Internet forum instead; that's too large a range and too scattered activity to rangeblock. –MuZemike 22:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and while you're at it, would you mind extending the protection time? A single day won't be sufficient.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow

What the hell does this "Vote X" guy have against you that they insist on coming back under various IPs? I'm starting to wonder if we should just block the entire lot of them (with instructions on how to create an account, not blocking account creation for legit. people) for a month or so and see if he goes away. CycloneGU (talk) 00:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I mean, as I just did with Roman calendar, the only thing you can do is semi-protect everything he touches. I forsee having to semi-protect WP:ANI again in the near future... –MuZemike 16:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Lay It on Me (song)

Someone went and created an article for this song, while a friend of mine had been working on one for a while in their sandbox. It is now impossible to move the sandbox into the mainspace, and I was wondering if you could delete the article so the sandbox could be moved in. I was going to start a deletion request, as the article does not pertain sources, and fails notability for songs, but that would take way too long and I think this is the best fit. I'm also the one asking because of the fact that my friend isn't that active, so I thought I'd help out. :) ℥^nding·start 00:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

(Outside observation) I thought you were already an admin. for some reason. However, if the song fails notability (for instance having not charted on Billboard or elsewhere notable) it should be redirected to the album. Deletion isn't needed for that. CycloneGU (talk) 01:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I've now set the redirect. Once the song charts (probably next week), go ahead and ask for deletion of the redirect and move the sandbox in with the info included. CycloneGU (talk) 01:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

It actually has charted on Billboard. The Bubbling Under, but it's still Billboard and a chart, the article that the other person put up does not account for it, but the sandbox does. ℥^nding·start 01:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Noted. I will thus leave the redirect for now and simply agree with its removal. Can you update the Billboard info on the sandbox to prep. it for moving? Once MuZemike deletes the redirect whichever of us sees it first (or even he himself if he wishes) can move the article into place. CycloneGU (talk) 01:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I've done this now, after a request at my talk page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

A wild self-proclaimed Covington appears!

Hi MuZemike. I noticed that this IP address seemed to behave curiously similarly to some usernames and an IP address that you recently blocked. Although I'm vastly amused to learn that there is a blog account that comments on me/us, and am very impressed at the close likeness to myself in some of the images, others may not be so easily amused. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I've blacklisted the URL. He's had his chance to be civil and collegial here, and he blew it fucking miserably with his massive inferiority complex. –MuZemike 07:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm about half a step away from full-protecting that article. If he insists on owning that article, then nobody will be able to edit it. –MuZemike 07:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Heads up

Hi, Mike. :)

I noticed that Aziz Deen-Conteh was created today...and the contributor's only prior edit was to create Philipp Prosenik. You deleted both of these previously as creations (evidently) of User:10alatham. :/ The contributor's edits are pretty obviously not those of a newcomer. Reason for concern? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll look at it in a little bit. –MuZemike 22:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't look like it's 10alatham. I'm concerned about copyvio concerns, but it looks like that the articles were copied directly from the Chelsea FC wiki [39] and [40]; that wiki is not CC-BY-SA or GFDL, according to their disclaimer. I'm inclined to delete both articles as copyright violations (WP:CSD#G12). –MuZemike 22:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. I didn't even check to see if it was (yet again) a copyvio; I figured the sock question was probably the most urgent, since this guy seems to be prolific. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The unblock email address doesn't work

Greetings,

I did not intend to be using my IP address to send you a message, but I have no other way to contact you, since that email address you gave me to unblock my Gigogag account does not work. I tried several times, but I got an automated message saying that "unblock-en-I@wikimedia.org" and "unblock-en-I@mail.wikimedia.org" do not work. Those were the two I was given. Is there another email address that I can use to send an unblock request? I am terribly sorry that I had to break my promise after over a year of being offline and sockpuppet in order to send you this message. I dearly hope that dealing with vandals on Wikipedia has been MUCH easier since I justly blocked.

97.103.214.35 (talk) 01:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC) "Gigogag"

It's "unblock-en-l" (lowercase "l" as in Chicago 'L'), not "unblock-en-I" (lowercase "I" as in "eye"). –MuZemike 01:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

A bit in exchange

I picked up on your latest addition from my watchlist and felt perhaps you might also like the one I have used many times. It doesn't follow an algorithm, but leaves the deciphering to the user. But it picks up everything. In case you want to try. here it is. Best, My76Strat (talk) 04:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

QuickEditor

Is it worth blocking access to QuickEditor talk page also? They're going on a real rant. Or do you think they'll just burn out? - Sitush (talk) 08:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Already done. What the hell was that guy's major malfunction? I hate to see how this person behaves in real life if this is only a fraction of his extreme temper problems. –MuZemike 09:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't know. Has been a bit of an oddball from the outset, but give people like this enough rope ... - Sitush (talk) 09:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 July newsletter

We are half way through the penultimate round of this year's WikiCup; there is less than a month to go before we have our final 8. Our pool leaders are Adabow (submissions) (Pool A, 189 points) and PresN (submissions) (Pool B, 165 points). The number of points required to reach the next round is not clear at this time; there are some users who still do not have any recorded points. Please remember to update your submissions' pages promptly. In addition, congratulations to PresN, who scored the first featured topic points in the competition for his work on Thatgamecompany related articles. Most points this round generally have, so far, come from good articles, with only one featured article (White-bellied Sea Eagle, from Casliber (submissions)) and two featured lists (Hugo Award for Best Graphic Story, from PresN and Grammy Award for Best Native American Music Album, from Another Believer (submissions)). Points for Did You Know and good article reviews round out the scoring. No points have been awarded for In the News, good topics or featured pictures this round, and no points for featured sounds or portals have been awarded in the entire competition. On an unrelated note, preparation will be beginning soon for next year's WikiCup- watch this space!

There is little else to be said beyond the usual. Please list anything you need reviewing on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, so others following the WikiCup can help, and please do help if you can by providing reviews for the articles listed there. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews generally at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup- points are, of course, offered for reviews at GAC. Two final notes: Firstly, please remember to state your participation in the WikiCup when nominating articles at FAC. Finally, some WikiCup-related statistics can be seen here and here. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 11:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Chaosname

Hi, I noticed you've been dealing with that guy. Nikolosa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is another obvious sock from the same bunch, as can be seen from the edit history of the Russians page. The page itself might need semi-protection, too. --illythr (talk) 18:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Got him, along with another sock. Russians has been semi-protected for 3 months, though I forsee in the very near future, as with English people, that will eventually have to be bumped up to full-protection. –MuZemike 18:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

That was quick, thanks! Judging by the rather naive way this guy goes about doing his little thing, I think he's a kid. A persistent one, though. --illythr (talk) 18:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Maryphillips1952

What do you think of User: Maryphillips1952 response to my question on her talk page? Looking back through her earlier contributions, I don't see anything that suggests that she's trying to be deceptive, but, on the other hand, it does seem suspicious to me that she would erase part of the SPI on her. It's clear to me that this user has been a pain, but it's unclear to me whether this pain is sincerely due only to lack of knowledge or is due to other issues (like COI or intentional disruption). Even the writing style worries me, though I suppose that could be caused by using some sort of mobile browser that makes it too difficult to edit with carefully... Qwyrxian (talk) 02:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I feel like I'm bending over my back to AGF here (the first time, yeah, but a second time?). But if you feel that's the case, I won't oppose an unblock. Also keep in mind that Horacio Gutiérrez may also need to be unprotected as a result (because of the IP editing, which I did to prevent further block evasion and deception). –MuZemike 02:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Troller101

Hate to bother you again, but I'm just wondering--what was the other account? Although, if that involves CU info, it's not really important. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but it does; however, I'm sure he'll be back via open proxies. –MuZemike 03:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Beep (video game)

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 08:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Another edit war at the Austrian School article

Hello,

sorry to bother you again, but we need moderator intervention with the Austrian School article. Please see the 13th section on the talk page "13 Schiff, summary of discussions". It summarizes the issue at hand. Misessus (talk) 19:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's wait for the moment, as it looks like things are a bit more stable within the past few hours. Please keep in mind that I am more inclined this time to issue blocks if the edit warring continues, as the full-protection has apparently had little effect. –MuZemike 22:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand. I've tried to explain that you can't support a claim about what mainstream economists have said about Austrian economics with a WSJ-article written by people who are not mainstream economists and don't discuss Austrian economics, because the article bears no relation to those claims, but no one has thus far responded to those objections and instead just reverted my edits and made open threats. Misessus (talk) 11:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I agree in with your (Muzemike's) approach. I have no comments on who such blocks might need to be leveled against, should any be forthcoming. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it might be helpful if either of you could comment on the discussion going on in the "Schiff, summary of discussions" -section, as that is the only active section at the moment pertaining to the very section of the actual article that is currently being edited and reverted. Misessus (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)