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.

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.[1] 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[2] 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,[3] 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://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Foobfairbanks is another one of [4] 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)