User talk:MBisanz

Hi, This is just my talk page, feel free to leave any advice on my edits or ask for help on anything. If you feel I've abused my administrative or BAG powers, please see User:MBisanz/Recall for further instructions to request their removal.

Rfa thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA. The Rfa was successful with 64 Support and 1 Neutral. None of this would have happened without your support. I would also like to thank my nominator Wizardman and my sensei/co-nom bibliomaniac15--Lenticel (talk) 09:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

YOU!

CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} has hugged you! Hugs promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better (and hopefully wasn't meant as an invasion of personal space). Spread the WikiLove by hugging at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Hug others by adding {{subst:Hug}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

TUSC token fa25b957c9efa54ee67b217d20c2934e

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

RfA thank you

		Thank you!
		MBisanz, it is with deep awareness of the responsibility conferred by your trust that I am honored to report that in part to your support, my request for adminship passed (87/14/6). I deeply value the trust you and the Wikipedia community have in me, and I will embark on a new segment of my Wikipedia career by putting my new tools to work to benefit the entire community. My best to you, Happyme22 (talk) 03:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 90 support, 2 oppose, and 0 neutral. All the best, Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 20:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFCU

Hey there MBisanz, myself and a few other users/CU's are a bit confused by this. Seeing as the case is currently a redlink, deleted for privacy reasons and placing the case on the RFCU mainpage... will...get you no where. Are you trying to request a checkuser? If so it may just be better to contact a checkuser via email. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 19:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Tip, I know it looks weird atm, but I will explain more as soon as class is over (+2 hours), it can be removed from the RFCU page though, I didn't remove it, only because lucas put in the note to keep it there. MBisanz ^talk 19:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I thought as much. I will go ahead and take it down for the time being. Thanks, Tiptoety ^talk 19:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you have a misunderstanding about IPblock exemption. Since it only applies to the named account, it can not be used to enable sockpuppets to evade autoblocks. IPBE could enable a good hand/bad hand editor to edit from the good account while the bad account is blocked, but it simply does not enable block evasion by sock accounts that do not have the permission. BC's two autoblocks can be most simply explained by editing from two locations (work/home/coffee shop/library/etc). Or, certain dynamic ISPs change frequently without knowledge or control of the user (most famously British Telecom, although I do not know where BC is located). I suppose their could be something shady going on but IPBE is not the cause and its removal is not the solution. Thatcher 20:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

So, last night I saw Betacommand had been blocked, last week he had made a comment in an IRC channel that he had amassed a sock farm, and last month I had noticed that blocks of users usually resulted in a single autoblock log entry when they edited their own talk page, logged in, etc. I decided to check on this by seeing how many autoblocks were active from the Betacommand block. I saw there were two entries, which indicated to me that something was amiss. After doing a test on IRC with another admin, it appeared that a single account, even editing from multiple IPs, cannot trigger multiple autoblock log entries. Also, Betacommand had IP-BE which means that checkusers may perform monitoring checks to ensure they are not abusing the right, a slightly more broad permission than the normal CU request rules. So I approached a checkuser on IRC with the data, the prior IRC conversation, etc. The checkuser did not feel comfortable running a private CU and said to post it on-wiki if I wanted it done.

I wrote it up, posted it, and linked it to WP:RFCU. Betacommand posts to his talk page that he was not socking, but that there is personal data he cannot disclose. He comes on IRC and asks me to delete the page. I remember that back when he was granted IP-BE, there was also private data involved that he submitted to an arbitrator. So, I figure I'd better play it safe, since the thing apparently involves personal data and I delete the page. It was pretty late my time, so I forgot to remove it from RFCU. By the time I woke up this morning, Lucas had already added a comment saying not to remove it, since again it dealt with private data, I figured I'd better not do anything. Also, Gimmietrow had removed Betacommand's IP-BE userright, which to me indicated that the "monitoring" aspect of IP-BE no longer applied, and that therefore my request, if I undeleted it, would probably be denied as {{fishing}}. So I decided that rather than create more drama I'd just let the thing die.

I still think, based on his comments, the autoblock log entries, the odd removal the IP-BE right when a checkuser appeared imminent, and his past history of using undisclosed alternate accounts that Betacommand is using/abusing some form of alternate account, but since I lack explicit proof, I'm just letting the matter die. MBisanz ^talk 22:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, the checkuser that wasn't comfortable doing it in private was me. Anyone who wants to accuse him of causing drama, or anything like that, should instead accuse me since I was the one that told him I wasn't comfortable doing this in private. MBisanz had concerns and had the guts to try to fix things up. People should thank him, really. --Deskana (talk) 03:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I should point out that Beta has not abused multiple accounts in the past. The guy has the resources and the intelligence to get past checkuser if he actually wanted to. The slip up with his secondary account does not make sense if he was attempting to sockpuppet. When that whole issue came about I knew it would lead to situations like this one. People would get it stuck in their head that sockpuppets might be involved in a situation that would not normally cause concern.

Beta may have some issues on the wiki, but he's an honest guy who doesn't play those kinds of games. -- Ned Scott 10:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Not true, Beta was found to be socking a while ago. He offered an excuse of "right to vanish" which was proven not to be true. This RFCU should not have been deleted to begin with, it was out of process per the process noted on the RFCU page. Just my two cents. KoshVorlon -rm F.U.R -r 14:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Put your dunce cap on, buddy, because that's the exact situation I was talking about. Nothing was "proven", so I don't know where you came up with that. It's laughably absurd to think that the edit he made with the alt account would have been a tactic at sock puppetry. Everyone knows by now that Beta uses more than one computer, he even has a "Betacommand 2" something account for the sake of some customized monobook or javascript setting. When he made the edit with the wrong account he did so without hiding who he was. He posted under that different account as himself, acting as he was just moments before. Given the way people have been treating him, it's no surprise, whatsoever, that he would have wanted to make a new account to start fresh with.

Just because he might have some problems with how he handled some past situations does not make him a dishonest user. You have no basis to say that he's done anything dishonest. He might be rude sometimes, be might be right or wrong about policy, but what you're accusing of him is completely out of character. You don't even have to like the guy to see this. -- Ned Scott 01:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

First, yes, Betacommand and I did argue about an image I placed on my userspace. Yes,I got totally incivil about it, and yes, I got blocked for it. I admitt that freely. I also admitt that I deserved to be blocked. I also draw your attetion to the fact that this is the first post I've posted since the whole drama with Betacommand began.

Your "explanation", on my page, was pretty good, but not entirely accurate. Betacommand has three known accounts, Betacommand, Betacommandbot and Betacommand2. The account he was blocked for (for socking)right here was none of the above, it was a totally different name. In particular, he went to the BOTS group and reverted Locker Cole, who he'd previously reverted under his name as shown here. He got blocked for it and as an explanation stated that he was attempting to start over as a new user.

Starting over is fine, it's allowable, however, when one starts over, don't they normally also allow their old acoounts to vanish ala, right to vanish ? He didn't, he kept he previous three accounts opened. Wouldnt' that strike you as a bit odd, considering he wanted to start over ? Why not just invoke "right to vanish" and start over ?

In addition to this, he's edit-warred on the Bots group see here, has edit warred and used incivil edit summaries, even though he's been warned not to do so as seen here....and the list goes on. YES I know what he does is difficult and he takes a load of shit from people for doing it. However, that doesn't exempt him from following known policy, like Ignore and deny or civil.

Bottom line here is, his hands are far from clean, and his latest attempt to keep his RFCU out of sight, in my opinion, is nothing more than gaming the system.

Thank you.

btw - please be more civil next time.
KoshVorlon -rm F.U.R -r 16:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

You say I have no basis to say he's done anything dishonest ? Plese re-read my message, socking, edit warring and gaming the system are all dishonest. KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 18:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring is not dishonest. It's bad, but it's not dishonest. Do you understand what the word honesty means? You don't get it, and your ignorance hurts Wikipedia. -- Ned Scott 04:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Ned, I don't know if you really believe that or not. However, common sense will tell you that edit warring, socking & gaming the system are dishonest. My conduct here and throughout wikipedia is proof that I definetly get it, first, I have been civil throughout this whole discussion, second, I post under no other name other than my own, third when I got blocked for incivility, I didn't attempt to evade or otherwise "get around" my block. I accepted the consequences for my bad behavior.

Like I said, I understand Betacommand gets a huge rash of shit for just simply doing his job on the 'pedia. It sucks too, in fact, I'll go as far as saying I suck for giving him a rash of shit about my own image, bottom line, none of that excuses incivil behavior, socking or gaming the system which , as far as I'm concerned, he's done. - THAT - hurts wikipedia, as he has been entrusted to carry out an important function on it. See you around, Ned.

KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 19:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

This isn't "all or nothing". I'm telling you that he was not using sockpuppets, but I'm not saying he's never hurt Wikipedia or never done anything wrong. -- Ned Scott 23:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

In case anyone reading this is wondering, I stopped reading this part of this discussion a long time ago, other than clicking the orange bar, Ned/Kosh, feel free to continue here though. MBisanz ^talk 23:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

ow woops, sorry for the mess, I added the note just to point that the red link was not an error (in case a clerk saw the link and removed it without checking the logs), I didn't expect it would prevent you from delisting it :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 07:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what kind of test you ran but it is possible to trigger autoblocks on multiple IP addresses, because I've seen it many times. Thatcher 16:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Beta indicated he had edited from two IPs, so we blocked a test account and had it try and edit from three different IP addresses and it only triggered one autoblock list entry. MBisanz ^talk 16:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a possibility -- the two autoblock summaries were different -- perhaps they were triggered by the two blocks? Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 16:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Possibly but I doubted it, mainly because both were triggered several hours after the second block was placed and the first block had been lifted. MBisanz ^talk 17:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Rights

Hi,

Im just wondering why you removed my rollback rights earlier? Thanks   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 10:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Well based on your response to a run of the mill civility block, I believed, and still believe you act with too much haste in your editing. Hence I removed a tool that enable users to perform actions at an accelerated rate. The first version of this question you posted to my page leads me to believe I was correct, but since RyanPoss believes you are able to use the tool effectively, I did defer, and will continue to defer to his decision to restore it. MBisanz ^talk 05:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou for raising that old diff, As for many admins think that the removal of rollback was poor judgment and in fact a punitive measure. The civility block (which was controversial in itself) had nothing to do with my use rollback (hence my original message).   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 06:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The National Conference Center

On 19 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The National Conference Center, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 21:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Assistance on Image

As you are an expert on image licencing you may be able to help us out. User-MZMcBride suggested your name. Some concerns have been raised on the image of Adi Shankara on the FAC nomination page of Anekantavada. Can you help to clear some air?--Anish (talk) 06:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, the license for that image was processed by ComCom, part of the Wikimedia Foundation. I'll try and track down one of those guys to have them check whatever documentation they got. MBisanz ^talk 10:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks --Anish (talk) 05:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Saw your message and thanks for the info.... but can it be used for the article Anekantavada which is currently under FAC nomination? Will it affect its chances?--Anish (talk) 06:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Ready

OK, I'm ready for the RFB. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

?

I thought once the candidate accepts the nomination, the election campaign starts from that time. I've also seen that an "admin" voted even before nominee accept the offer. The deletion is a bit harsh and i don't get it. I'm also hurt by such the treatment. I strongly urge that you revert yourself. I also did not find any description on article of RFA or RFB that "untranscluded election page does not accept votes. Even the RFA page of Shalm Yeichel's election had not been transcluded for more than 3 days because of some errors on his past RFAs, but I also people cast their votes during the time --Caspian blue (talk) 02:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Then fix the relevant page on the guideline and you would have been better telling me your worry before rudely deleting it. After it is transclued, you revert your edit. I would not do that. --Caspian blue (talk) 02:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice job

here. Neat. Enigma ^message 04:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Also nice job on the RfB nom. Number-counting here, but it's the third-most supported RfB in history. Not going to get near #2, but that's pretty good. Enigma ^message 17:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

advice on your edits

"Actually, I'd probably of blocked Gene Poole for that comment"... Probably have, not of. the 'of' comes from hearing the 've ending seen in would've could've should've, for example. But that's for have, not of. Number one grammar peeve.ThuranX (talk) 05:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh, thanks, I will attempt to use better grammar. :) MBisanz ^talk 05:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Protection on Rlevse's RfB

Do you think it should be shortened to extend to July 29th? Rudget (logs) 10:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't really make a difference since its only move protected and will expire on its own, but feel free to fiddle around with it. MBisanz ^talk 11:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

No big deal as long as it goes to end of rfb ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 11:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

User talk:William Saturn

You offered this user a {{2nd chance}}; he has written an article and asked for unblock based on that. At first glance it looks pretty good. My personal policy with 2nd chance, though, is to refer it back to the admin that offered it. So you might want to comment. Mangojuice^talk 14:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

When you get a chance...

would appreciate your input on the Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Editing_Restriction proposal, so it can be enacted or dismissed soon. Cheers - Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, how was I involved in this? MBisanz ^talk 16:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You are uninvolved; that's why I wanted your input. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

images for Zero Time and Green now tagged

Dear MBisanz

I have now tagged my images for Zero Time and Green (cover art for a Steve Hillage album). Did I do it right? Are they safe? I didn't quite understand that I needed to add additional informatio to that I already provided. I thought I had it all covered, but obviously not.

I intend to write a few more articles on record albums of note, so I presume I need to do the same in every case?

What about some books that I have (I have one evry old book dating from 1841 that I intend to write an article about, along with a photo I'll make myself. Would such an old book need a tag?

Anyway, I'm sure I'll get the hang of this in due course.

Yours sincerely

--Michealomealoid (talk) 21:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Admin coaching

I would like very much to be considered for admin coaching. Although I'm still newly registered, I've lurked for a while and I really enjoy wikipedia. I want to do as much as I can to improve the content of wikipedia and hope that you'll be able to help me achieve that goal. Please reply to me on my talk page. Thanks! Notepad47 (talk) 04:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Soft redirects of templates

Hi, about a month ago you changed a couple redirects for fair use templates (e.g. {{promophoto}} and {{fairusein}}) to soft redirects. This means they cannot be used as substitutes for the corresponding {{Non-free promotional}} and {{Non-free fair use in}} as they don't transclude properly. I was wondering what the reasoning was. I undid {{promophoto}} a few days ago, assuming it to be an anomaly, however I just found {{fairusein}}, and thought that i'd better ask you before i did something stupid. Thanks, Storkk (talk) 10:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Undid myself on {{promophoto}}, which was the only one i had changed. Thanks for the quick response! --Storkk (talk) 10:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Uploading

I need some help if you can. I wanted to upload an image of this videogame character (Devil (Tekken)) but i can't find the right sources, if you could, write me on my talk page and give me some tips. Thanks, Ultron5000 (talk) 16:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Adminship

So may I ask, if I could: you would still feel comfortable with a nomination, or have actions in the meantime caused you to question whether you would support me as a candidate? I will not feel at all hurt if you say the latter - I would prefer that than to drag you into an RFA that you don't wish to push. The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

You rang?

I got a message letting me know that you wanted to speak to me, and that it should sound ominous, so I'm just dropping this note. How can I help? Gazimoff_{(mentor/review)} 12:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

SSP & RFCU > SSP2 going slow

Dear MBisanz...Since you agreed that the sock puppet process needed an overhaul, I was wondering if you would be somewhat active in making sure that it gets done. Currently, the merging of Suspected sock puppets and Requests for checkuser is going rather slow. I would like to get the templating done soon. To do that the merging needs to be completed first, or at least the proposed process finalized. I ask you to take part in getting this done. You can start by reading SSP2 and then the talk page. I have already written two of the templates, but the rest will take a finalized process to write. Hopefully, you have the time to take part in this. Have a nice day! - LA @ 05:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Got off a plane a little while ago, will try to get to this in the next couple of days. MBisanz ^talk 05:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you do me a little favor the next time you answer on your talk page instead of mine, please place a {{Talkback}} on my talk page to alert me to the fact that you answered. Thanks! :) - LA (T) 10:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for running the check to verify that I am not, in fact, Lar. (Lar gave me a heads-up that you had done so.) I'm not sure why anyone would even think that. As others have pointed out, Lar is much more clueful. ;-) Kelly ^hi! 14:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, it was fun to check up on a checkuser, finally I HAZ DA POWER! I was actually checkusered at the simple english wikipedia due to their belief I was grawp, lulz :) MBisanz ^talk 05:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

HAGGER? (I always wanted to say that!) I'm sure I just tripped an anti-vandal filter somewhere. :) Kelly ^hi! 12:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Grrrr ...

MBisanz, I saw your name in the edit history at User:Redirect fixer, so I'm hoping you know how one communicates with that page. It's messing up WP:GO. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that info; I left him a message. Very strange how a Wiki page that's not a user can change something basic that messes up basic pages, but I'm supposed to figure out how to communicate with the person or file a bug report. The default should be checked off; most strange situation. Thanks again, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 14 and 21, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 29	14 July 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: Transparency
WikiWorld: "Goregrind"	Dispatches: Interview with botmaster Rick Block
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 30	21 July 2008	About the Signpost

WikiWorld: "Cartoon physics"	News and notes: New Board Chair, compromised accounts
Dispatches: History of the featured article process	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 05:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

RFA thankspam

Thanks for your support in my RFA, which passed with 140 supporting, 11 opposing, and 4 neutral. I will do my best to live up to the trust that you have given to me. If I can ever assist you with anything, just ask.

Cheers!

J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

RFA thank-you

Thank-you for your support of me at my recent RFA, which was successful. I have appreciated everyone's comments and encouragement there. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

RfB Thank You spam

Thank you for participating in my RfB! I am very grateful for the confidence of the community shown at my RfB, which passed by a count of 154/7/2 (95.65%). I have read every word of the RfB and taken it all to heart. I truly appreciate everyone's input: supports, opposes, neutrals, and comments. Of course, I plan to conduct my cratship in service of the community. If you have any advice, questions, concerns, or need help, please let me know. Again, Thanks! — Rlevse • Talk • 08:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hard block

FYI - That range doesn't hardblock me (not telling you this to take the piss but as far as I can see, all you've done is block the range for a large number of possible good faith editors). --87.114.36.65 (talk) 18:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)