User talk:MuZemike

Or: The War Room

Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the War Room!

Ground rules

1. Post at the bottom of the page.
2. Sign your comments at the end with four tildes (~~~~), which automatically generates your username and date posted.
3. I will respond to queries here, so please watch this page.
4. Be nice and chances are I will be nice back.

CharmedBuffy12 (talk · contribs)

Hello. I'm not sure where to go with this, but I figured I'd start with you. You recently blocked CharmedBuffy12 (talk · contribs) as a sock of RoyalPains11 (talk · contribs). Since then, CharmedBuffy continues to be active on Commons, adding copyrighted images and claiming "own work", such as here {and others that have since been deleted) . An IP 118.209.184.32 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) then adds these to the appropriate pages. (These have already been deleted: [1], [2]) It seems suspicious to me that the IP is CharmedBuffy/RoyalPains, but I wasn't sure what to do about it. I was hoping you could help. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 12:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

salt a username?

Is it possible to salt a username to prevent sock creation and achieve WP:DENY? I'm thinking of this one particularly. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 02:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

That's actually a good idea. Perhaps put in a filter if SALTing isn't possible. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Might need a rangeblock after that last post. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

FYI: MediaWiki:Titleblacklist. --Highspeedrailguy (talk) 17:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

He'll be just harder to find. --Highspeedrailguy (talk) 17:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Just found many socks from July. . All blocked for everything but sockpuppetry. --Highspeedrailguy (talk) 17:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Put any usernames with "|" in title blacklist? --Posted on 19:19 on 1 March in 2011 (UTC) by Highspeedrailguy 19:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Murdox/GNAA

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

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

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

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

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

Jarlie

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

218.186.0.0/16

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

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

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

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

Picture Question

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WikiCup 2011 February newsletter

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

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

Just a reminder of the rules; if you have done significant work on content this year and it is promoted in this round, you may claim for it. Also, anything that was promoted after the end of round one but before the beginning of round two may be claimed for in round two. Details of the rules can be found on this page. For those interested in statistics, a running total of claims can be seen here, and a very interesting table of that information (along with the highest scorers in each category) can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

GAR: Andrei Kirilenko (politician)

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

To reverse AfD of Amanda Knox

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

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

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

Report

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

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

Spies Reminiscent of Us GAN

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

IP block exemption

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

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

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

Online Ambassador Program

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