User talk:MuZemike/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Thanks

Many thanks for the GA review.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Dardani

In case you didn't notice, we have resolved the dispute [1] Thanks Aigest (talk) 20:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I unprotected it. –MuZemike 20:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Huttselovesmillie

I just blocked User talk:Huttselovesmillie as vandalism-only because they created another attack article after being warned about the first one. Feel free to unblock if you think that that would be more productive. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 03:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Meh, I'm not going to complain about the block. I probably would have blocked on the next one anyways. –MuZemike 03:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

ANI Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Biting, assumptions of bad faith, and other assorted nonsense at AfD. Thank you. —Farix (t | c) 21:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

DRV close template

Hi, MuZemike. I fixed your closure of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 April 21#Songs from the Tainted Cherry Tree here. The correct template is {{subst:DRV bottom}}, not {{subst:DRV close}}. Cheers, Cunard (talk) 06:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Duh, I don't know what I was thinking there. Thanks, –MuZemike 13:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Good Article Nominations

Hey! I just wanted to thank you for finishing up the review I started at Bad Romance. I've been having computer problems and haven't been able to get on, so it was a huge relief to see that somebody else had taken care of it by the time I got back. Thanks! Annalise (talk) 14:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

BruceJenner / Blackberry IP range block

Ok, so I get that it's a problem, but...

Why can't we AO/no account create rangeblock the whole Blackberry IP range sets he's coming from?

We've done whole provider ranges before.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I have been under the impression that when the CheckUsers made their last check about 3 weeks ago (see this CU request) that a rangeblock over that range would not be possible due to collateral damage. I mean, unless there have been recent anon activity which I'm unaware of (when I look at the SPI archive page, the last anon activity goes back to 2009), I don't think AO rangeblocks are going to help but shut out innocent IPs. I mean, you can ask a CU to run another check on whichever range they're currently on, but I don't see it as being fruitful. –MuZemike 02:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 April newsletter

Trophy.png

Round two is over, and we are down to our final 32. For anyone interested in the final standings (though not arranged by group) this page has been compiled. Congratulations to Pennsylvania Hunter Kahn (submissions), our clear overall round winner, and to Colombia ThinkBlue (submissions) and Norway Arsenikk (submissions), who were solidly second and third respectively. There were a good number of high scorers this round- competition was certainly tough! Round three begins tomorrow, but anything promoted after the end of round two is eligible for points. 16 contestants (eight pool leaders and eight wildcards) will progress to round four in two months- things are really starting to get competitive. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Judge iMatthew has retired from Wikipedia, and we wish him the best. The competition has been ticking over well with minimal need for judge intervention, so thank you to everyone making that possible. A special thank you goes to participants Bavaria Stone (submissions) and War ensign of the German Empire Navy 1848-1852.svg White Shadows (submissions) for their help in preparing for round three. Good luck everyone! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 17:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Civility Enforcer/Archive

I went through blocking and tagging those accounts, but when I came back to update the page, it was closed! Just a heads up on what I had done, please let me know if anything needs to be corrected. TNXMan 19:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I archived it. It looks good. –MuZemike 20:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for that. It really needs a bit of work, I was going to try and buff it myself as I reviewed it but not having studied CF since med school I was pretty rusty. On the up side, I am sure it will be reviewed promptly if resubmitted after improvements. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

There were two tricky ones - the other is a real challenge too, and I want to try and help the nominator pass it. After some discussion on scope, I have decided to take Illegal logging in Madagascar as is and help Visionholder get it through while reviewing it. For me the issue is making the prose more succinct and hence encyclopedic. My main concern is that its intense detail in of itself leads it into soapboxing territory. This is hard as I do feel it is an important subject to educate readers about and I would dearly like to see it promoted too. I have done a bit but it is draining work, so if a few of us are involved it might give all involved a boost. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

User Talk:GodHatesNazis

Isn't this an inappropiate username? And if I linked it wrong, I'm sorry. I'm still learning. I love me! (talk) 23:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Blocked. Thanks for reporting this. A username like this will generally appear on WP:UAA almost instantly, though, so it's not usually necessary to report it manually. Soap 00:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

82.1.157.16

Hi, 82.1.157.16 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), previously blocked by you (probable FootballPhil sock) is back and carrying on much as before. DuncanHill (talk) 13:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

6 months. –MuZemike 14:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 14:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Race and intelligence on ANI

Hi MuZemike. You moved the ANI discussion to a sub-page and, while this is standard practice, and I know you mean well, I think it worth noting that the previous discussion, which also was moved by you, died down inconclusively once it was moved off ANI. My guess is that the same thing will happen to this one. Leaving discussions unsettled is not healthy for the encyclopedia. --RegentsPark (talk) 01:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

You know what? Do whatever you want. With another huge flame war erupting as I write, if you folks want ANI to be over 700K large, so be it. Arbitration should seriously be considered if it already hasn't done so. –MuZemike 01:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
And that's the problem with ANI in that it's become the "whining/flame war board" in which everything gets dumped into a humongous blender. It's that exact noticeboard which has effectively killed any other viable venue of dispute resolution available on WP.</rant> –MuZemike 01:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Well the deed is done so there's not much that can be done here. I think it better to resolve stuff on ANI then with arbcom but that's just a personal opinion. --RegentsPark (talk) 02:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I hear you, but if this is the second time I apparently had to move a long discussion on the same topic (note that I wasn't aware that this wasn't the second time), then ANI may not be helping out very much. Besides, I would think those involved would know what is going on and what is at stake. As far as the "deed being done", it can always be reverted (i.e. it can be merged back, though not deleted as that would break attribution), so it's not like there is "no way out", if you understand what I'm saying. –MuZemike 06:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

you may be interested in......

[[2]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

That (User:Teenage Martyr) is our old friend again trying to jerk us around. –MuZemike 15:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
oUR FRIEND IS BACK, PLEASE SEE User talk:VaginicaWestwood Hell In A Bucket (talk) 20:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Liberalism and History of Liberalism

Hi, I think both of them have been failed, but due to disagreement between me and the nominator, I asked for another reviewer.Seyyed(t-c) 02:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. –MuZemike 02:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet

MuZemike, regarding Sgaran as a possible sock, could you please take another look? In particular, check this and this, wherein the 64.85.252.225 ip manually signs posts as Sgaran, and this post by Sgaran in which he explains that he started using his user account after his ip access was blocked. My talk page has a fairly long conversation Sgaran or 64.85.252.225 or both depending on how you look at it.

If you look at the content and scope of the posts, they do all appear to have the same source, and I think meet the basic duck test. Compare the user contributions of 64.85.252.225, Special:Contributions/12.149.202.41, and Special:Contributions/Sgaran.

I'm curious as to what tool you're using to find geographical location of the ip. As a net admin, I know how difficult it is to do, especially if you are relying on whois data, but according to [3] and [4], 12.149.202.41 and 64.85.252.225 terminate in the bay area. 64.85.252.225 belongs to Astound Broadband, centered in Concord, CA, and the 12.149.202.41 address is assigned, I believe to Apple under ATT's auspices. My initial thought is that the 12.149.202.41 is an iPhone, and the 64.85.252.225 is the user's home ip address.

Finally, I traced all this bruhaha, I think, back to it's origin. If you look at the history of Phenome, here, users Crusio and Pfjoseph were engaged in a serious dispute over a redirect to phenotype. That ends in December 09 with the Pfjoseph not reverting Crusio's redirect. Then at the end of April, the redirect is reverted by 128.32.252.41 (which also points to the bay area by the graphical traceroutes above, and belongs to bekerley), see this. Then 64.85.252.225 starts the same pattern, see [5] as an example. Phenomics is a related term, note that Sgaran authored that article claiming to have originated the term.[6]

On April 29th, Crusio nominated Steven A. Garan, Automated Imaging Microscope System and Aging Research Centre, then things started getting a bit crazy.

Anyway, just thought I'd bring you up to speed. I honestly don't know what to think of all of this, really, and don't care much what the outcome of the SPI is. I'm going to try to mediate a bit over on Phenome and work on the articles related to this. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Hi, please forgive me for butting in on this discussion. I have decided to leave WP (for reasons unrelated to this), so this may be my final edit here. The Phenomics article led me to the walled garden created by Sgaran, including the article on Paola Timiras. She is absolutely notable, but reading the bio you'd get the impression that she accomplished everything thanks to her and her graduate students "collaborating with Steven Garan". The article did not mention her most notable publications, but it did contain a long list of abstracts and non-notable publications (hardly ever cited) co-authored by SA Garan. Sgaran has posted a note on the AfDs of the articles mentioned by Nuujinn (as well as on several user talkpages) denouncing my "malicious attack" on Timiras as childish behavior. As the subject of the attack, there's not much I can do about that, but one admin has removed one of those attacks (labeling it as "garbage"). Perhaps somebody could look at the others, too (after all, these things will show up in Google searches for my name)? Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 09:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Looking at the SPI again, I still have to conclude that I'm not really seeing sock puppetry here, especially given the different locations on the IPs as noted. There is probably a huge COI here and probably a likely case for meatpuppetry (as Nuujinn has mentioned above and in the SPI) going on. I've seen the same thing happen regarding Kils (talk · contribs) (see this SPI case for more details), though this is not as a severe or nonchelant scale as this. –MuZemike 06:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for taking another look. Could be meat puppetry, since there's a research group that would have an interest. I'm still curious about how you all determine geographical location--but I could understand if you all would want to keep that under wraps. In any case, it looks like this is all dying down now, appreciate your time in this. --Nuujinn (talk) 09:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
It's not a secret. WHOIS and Geolocation can easily give anyone information about IP addresses and approximate whereabouts. –MuZemike 02:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Not to beat a dead horse, but I find that whois/arin is no longer very useful for commercial ISPs. For example, whois reports my IP number at home to be in florida, and my SO's IP to be in Virginia, and I live in NC. I'm not sure which geolocation service you're using, but I hope it's not netgeo from CAIDA. In any case, I asked a few of the security folks I work with what they use these days, and their current favorite is maxmind (and I believe the links I provided you use that as a backend). They have a direct web page for their organization version which they say is more accurate, that report both of the IPs I reported as being in Concord CA. You can try it out here. I'm not concerned about the SPI since things have died down, but I am still curious about why we're getting different results. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

A Request

Could you take a look at this section on ANI if you aren't busy? The user is seeking an admin and I have done all in my power to help. User is getting a little heated and my help isn't, well, helping. - NeutralHomerTalk • 02:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like Jayron32 has gotten a handle of it. –MuZemike 19:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

GAN backlog elimination drive award

Tireless Contributor Barnstar.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For reviewing 16 good article nominations during the April 2010 GAN backlog elimination drive, I hereby present you The Tireless Contributor Barnstar. Good work! Wizardman Operation Big Bear 23:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia Motivation Award Wikipedia Motivation Award
On behalf of those who participated in the April 2010 GAN Backlog Elimination Drive, I hereby award you this Motivation Award, for your efforts in rallying the troops to clear the backlog, improve the encyclopedia, and even inspire another backlog elimination drive, which is ongoing now. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 12:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


Mark Aldred

Hello. You were involved in a sockpuppetry investigation of this user a couple months ago, and since he's increased his ridiculous behavior to epic levels [7], it might be helpful if you took a look at the current report. --Splatterhouse5 (talk) 00:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

rollback question

Thank you for giving me rollback ability.

There is an administrator, Crum375, who did not use rollback according to Wikipedia instructions. The edit rolled back was neither vandalism or unconstructive. Actually, it was a grammar related point. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACrum375&action=historysubmit&diff=360534337&oldid=359674756

I think this is violating rollback rules. However, I am not for draconian punishment or any punishment at all. I am curious to whether Wikipedia rules should be followed to by the letter, especially for long time editors and admins. I can see giving new users leeway so we don't chase them away. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

If it's regarding this revert, I'd call it borderline vandalism, as replacing a full stop with an exclamation point does not seem very constructive at all, especially regarding an informative common declarative statement like that.
In general, obviously admins need to exercise rollback with the same care as those non-admins with rollback. The problem is that, because of how the software is setup, rollback is automatically built into the sysop user right; hence, you can't yank rollback there without desysopping. I've still yet to see an admin desysopped for misusing rollback. Hope that helps. –MuZemike 16:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Administrator immunity goes against Wikipedia customs. In practice, this should happen very, very rarely but will give administrators an incentive not to violate rollback rules. Sample idea...

Documentation[create]


In short, I will suggest this only if I see a problem, not before. So far, I don't see a widespread problem. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 18:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

You can also look at it another way. If an admin cannot be trusted with rollback, can he/she/it be trusted with blocking or deleting, both of which can do more potential damage than rollback? –MuZemike 18:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Zealking

That edit up above looks a lot like the sort of things that Zealking has done, such as this, but it's not like Zealking to use IP's. Soap 17:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Block of Onefinalstep

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Sorry to involve you but the editing I did was entangled with yours. This is just about the block and in no way about the merits of our debate on Vera Baker. ThanksOnefinalstep (talk) 05:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Didn't mean to edit conflict with youOnefinalstep (talk) 07:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
It wasn't you. It was the section below. Sorry, –MuZemike 07:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for unprotection

This may be of some interest to you. --RegentsPark (talk) 19:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Quack and blocked. –MuZemike 19:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
no surprise there :) --RegentsPark (talk) 19:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm trying to figure out just what was being "unprotected"--it wasn't clear from those links. It is fascinating to learn about the wiki administrative process, but it is hard to follow sometimes.98.206.138.33 (talk) 04:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism-only accounts

Hi MuZemike,

I know you've undone the indefinite block on user:FunkMonk that you performed, but I would urge you to use caution when indefinitely blocking in the future. A quick glance at the user's contributions would have shown a long history of edits dating back to 2007, with more than 17,000 live edits. There's no way that could be mistaken for a vandalism-only account. Anyway, thanks for reversing the block. Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 09:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I realize that, hence my unblocking. –MuZemike 10:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Zinbarg

If one is blocked, then how can a revert be "editing while logged out"? It can only be block evasion, and intentional, since the IP will be blocked too. Jayjg (talk) 04:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I just see that I double-talked myself there unintentionally. In any case, what I said in the latter remains, that neither have edited in well over 24 hours (Zinbarg's block expired about 6 hours ago). In my opinion, reblocking for block evasion seems a bit more punitive than anything else. Let's wait and see if anything else happens here. –MuZemike 06:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

You have a fan!.

This just got a sock's talk page access revoked. Admirer of yours? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, he's had some gay infatuation with me for a while. –MuZemike 15:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Well considering his usernames are pretty obvious, it it not possible to bar anyone from creating a username with "pank" in it or get a bot to report them straight to UAA? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
We used to have User:HBC NameWatcherBot, but that bot is no longer operational. –MuZemike 12:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
It's actually been replaced with SoxBot, which has a similar customisable blacklist - Kingpin13 (talk) 13:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Wow, I never noticed :) Anyways, I'll talk to him about adding a function that would report obvious sock-like usernames to WP:SPI/BOT (which has been inactive since Chillum took his bot offline). –MuZemike 14:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hey man, thanks for lifting that block. I just logged on in school and tried to edit this, but some dumbass got me blocked. Thanks again. I owe ya one. :) qö₮$@37 (talk) 19:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Someone wants to get you into trouble?

Per this edit @ User talk:Dave1185/unprotected talk page#Welcome to Georgie's Italian Restaurant, I'm sure this was not done by you but hey... I still got to inform you, right? BTW, I'm going for a 2 week vacation starting today... how do I let these bozos know that? Thoughts? --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 00:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

SPI report

Hi, I just added some evidence to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zinbarg. Since you seem to be handling the case, I thought it might be best to notify you of it. Cheers, Jakew (talk) 15:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

DavidYork71

Per checkuser results at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DavidYork71/Archive, can you please indef block Superfalse (talk · contribs) as a sock of DavidYork71 (talk · contribs)? Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 22:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done – I wonder how that got missed? –MuZemike 19:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
No worries, and thanks very much. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 22:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

207.69.137.0/24

Is this an open proxy? The block reason doesn't say so (at least not the only one I can see, which says "Hardening block", but I can't see what block it is being hardened from). Peter 22:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was, as said in the range's block log. It was also verified by another user, who brought that IP range to my attention. –MuZemike 22:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Man, those block logs are a pain when it comes to ranges. I've been using the block list because range blocks don't showing up in the block log when searching for individual IPs, and the main block log seems very inconsistent... Anyway thanks for confirming that. I was asking because someone emailed unblock-en-l caught by this, saying they are using a dial up service. Any suggestions as to what I should tell them? Any way they can edit? Peter 22:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
If it's a current good faith user, then I would just have an admin grant that user IPBE on them. If it's a new user, then they would need to request an account. In any case, I've also invited the original blocking admin to comment. –MuZemike 22:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
ACC/IPBE sounds right. IIRC it's a range used by a serial vandal who also abuses unblock requests -[8]. Tim Song (talk) 02:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
The user in question doesn't have an account, if they did I would have already granted (or not as the case may be) IPBE based on their contributions. However, I'm not sure what the norm is for a user who doesn't already have an account - I'm not sure if it's ok to grant them a new account with IPBE straight away? Especially with the comment about abusing unblock requests? Peter 19:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
If they can supply a school/ISP/workplace email, I don't see a problem; otherwise, we could still AGF - if that account is acting disruptively, it could be blocked very quickly. Tim Song (talk) 00:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
We could soften the block then back to AO if this is a possible closed proxy. –MuZemike 00:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea to me; I've done that accordingly. Tim Song (talk) 00:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
We should keep it at TBD (talk page disabled) because I think we know exactly what this person likes to do. –MuZemike 00:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Just FYI it's not an open proxy, but Earthlink's Chicago caching proxies. There's lots of legitimate users on their network. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Untitled Fallout game

Hello, I see you've deleted Untitled Flatout game for copyright infringement from this this GDN article. However, what they've posted is a word-for-word press release. I attained that press release from GamesPress.com and re-wrote it so it didn't sound so much like a press release (as press releases should be). I merely used GDN as a referrence to confirm what I wrote. Is this not allowed on wikipedia? EvanVolm (talk) 17:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Everything except small parts of the first two sentences were copypasted directly from that source; that is not allowed since that material is under copyright from the company (we don't allow copyrighted material since all text is supposed to be free content). I don't mind you recreating it, provided you write the article in your own words, and that there is enough reliable sources verifying its release. That is, it could have been briefly mentioned in the FlatOut article (since there's really nothing there right now), but that's IMO. –MuZemike 17:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

A Wisconsinite, eh?

Hi there. I was reading the CU elections and found that you are from Wisconsin. Are there many editors from around there? If so, I'm wondering if there is any chance of organizing a meetup. Seeing as I am a Yooper, one held in Wisconsin would be one I might actually have a chance at making. :) —Ed (talkmajestic titan) 09:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Had MuZemike's page on my watchlist, so I can answer part of your question. To see how many editors are from Wisconsin (who have listed by using the userbox) see Category:Wikipedians in Wisconsin. - NeutralHomerTalk • 10:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I have some bad news for you folks, though. In a few months, I'll probably be moving down to the flatlands because, well, I'm just moving on with things IRL. –MuZemike 02:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

76.237.81.89

Hi again MuZemike. I have had to reblock several open proxies[9] where you have made comment that "Tor block extension has been fixed". I'd encourage you not to unblock any more like this. But mainly I'm looking for some background to this comment, as I don't think it has. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

You may wish to ask Deskana about this, as he made the blocks on all those addresses; I helped him out on the unblocking. We were told from Werdna that the MW extension was fixed, not necessitating the need for the blocks. –MuZemike 22:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Looking at bugzilla:23321 this might be an ongoing feature. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

SPI clerk

Hello, MuZemike. I would like to become an SPI trainee. Could you coach me? Thanks. ~NerdyScienceDude () 23:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You may need to ask someone else in the case I do become a CU (which in that case, another clerk would need to pick up Bsadowski1 for me). There should be a few others willing to help out. Regards, –MuZemike 01:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Good luck in the CheckUser election. BTW, I supported you. ~NerdyScienceDude () 01:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

needs perma-block

User talk:122.102.100.14 has been vandalising for more than a year without a block.03:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SwordsmanRyan (talkcontribs)

Was originally going to issue a 12-hour disruption block, but after I saw the long, long history of vandalism, I have extended the block to 1 year. –MuZemike 03:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Adam Kontras‎

Is there likely to be any movement on this before my liver gives out? --Ibn (talk) 07:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it and/or ping Deskana myself. I'm not quite sure that the SPI implicates, but I think you should carefully read what Deskana was able to disclose. –MuZemike 07:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

user:Khaledfooty

Hi ther; you have blocked this user as being a sockpuppet of user:Tony254trill. I am not saying you are wrong, but the SPI does not seem to confirm your conclusion. Do you know something I do not?--Anthony.bradbury"talk" 17:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Please compare Khaledfooty's contribs with User:Texasmade2010's contribs (whom the latter was confirmed as Tony254trill). There are too many similarities in the editing styles. Also please see the results here. –MuZemike 17:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Mcjakeqcool

Might a suggest a checkuser and once that is done a range block. Would give you time to do other things. - NeutralHomerTalk • 18:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am way ahead of you and has already emailed a CU about it. –MuZemike 18:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Ah, good. I also took the liberty of asking Newyorkbrad to do so as well, so we have double people working on this. Hope this gets taken care of. Take Care Dude. - NeutralHomerTalk • 18:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Neutralhomer's issues and mentorship

Hi, I noticed you were involved with Neutralhomer (User_talk:Neutralhomer/Archive6#Consequences) not too long ago for marking non-vandalism as vandalism. He is continuing this behavior (see User_talk:Bwilkins#Neutralhomer_continuing_to_edit-war_and_mark_non-vandalism_as_vandalism for a summary), which I am very concerned about. I have no direct involvement but I don't think it is good for us to allow this kind of thing to go unchecked. II | (t - c) 01:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

This user jumped the gun running to the adminship claiming I wasn't be "responsive". I just woke up from a nap. This user seems to be only out to get me blocked and not interested in talking about it when only allowing me an hour to respond to his/her talk page post. - NeutralHomerTalk • 03:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

SPI Backlog

Hi,

I know it is not you fault that SPI has got backlogged, but is it possiable someone could have a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Catface1965 it has been a week now since anyone has commented on it. Codf1977 (talk) 15:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look - as for the two separate continents, point - that is very valid, however it can be explained with the use of GeoIP and a bit of googleing - I have resisted putting the link on the SPI for fear of effectively outing the IP user - if you feel it is appropriate I am happy to show the link. Codf1977 (talk) 19:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
also think the SPI needs to be moved to the CU section. Codf1977 (talk) 19:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
No need to show the link. And yes, the case will be moved shortly. –MuZemike 19:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

deletion of Duperrault page

The entry on "Duperrault" was deleted by you allegedly for lack of significance about the person (A7). Terry Jo Duperrault was the sole survivor of a mass murder that took place on the ocean, which left her entire nuclear family dead. She was found adrift in the ocean on a cork flotation device after 4 days at sea. She has just published a book about her experience, so people (like me) who want to read about her story will be searching Wiki. And you have deleted the entry. Research should be done before entries are deleted for "lack of significance". If I can read about celebutantes on Wiki, surely I should be able to read about this. Akimberleyew (talk) 00:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I took a second look at the article, and I found out that much of it is the same stuff said in Bluebelle (ship). Here's what I did: I undeleted Dupperault, moved it to Terry Jo Duperrault (proper name), and then I redirected to Bluebelle (ship). If there was anything extra in there that is not in the Bluebelle article, then you can access the previous edits in the Duperrault article here and then add into the Bluebelle article. Hope that helps out a bit better. –MuZemike 00:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you -- that is a totally satisfactory solution. Appreciate the prompt response and redress. Akimberleyew (talk) 01:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Callmarcus

Hello, MuZemike. I just noticed that you forgot to block User:Root7, one of the sockpuppets of Callmarcus. RG (talk) 23:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Kobi Arad

Hello! You were involved in the sockpuppet investigations of a number of editors involved with the deleted article Kobi Arad, now archived at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Knoblauch129/Archive. I suspect the new user Editor2100 (talk · contribs) may be another sockpuppet. This editor has recreated the article at Yaakob Arad to circumvent the WP:SALT. I'm not sure how to re-open this archived case. Hoping you can help or advise! --Deskford (talk) 15:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like JzG nabbed him. Thanks anyways for letting me know. –MuZemike 20:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

India film vandal again

See here, thanks. Please protect the page.— dαlus Contribs 04:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

IP temporarily blocked, and Mohanlal semi-protected for a long time. –MuZemike 08:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Garrysmith10 Socks

Might want to reopen the SPI on Garrysmith10. I suck at doing SPIs or I would myself. If he has two so far, there are more....there always is. - NeutralHomerTalk • 08:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't know what much can be done. This guy is going crazy on open proxies, and it's only a matter of time before he abuses another one. I've semi-protected WP:ANI for a few hours as a result. –MuZemike 08:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Ah, didn't know it was open proxies. Didn't we have a BOT that went around and closed up open proxies? If we don't, we should. - NeutralHomerTalk • 08:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
ProcseeBot can only do so much at one time, and believe me, that bot has done more blocking than any of us admins have ever done. Anyways, I'm only going off what CU reported, and I'll have to trust that since I obviously cannot see the results. –MuZemike 08:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I knew we did. :) I believe ya. Seem alot of open proxies are being used these days. Hope none of those 5 year blocks expired. I really wish that admins could/would block open proxies indef. They are nothing but trouble it seems. - NeutralHomerTalk • 08:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Slashdot GAN

I had to go out of town on an extended wikibreak, so I wasn't able to respond to your comments in time. I was disappointed to see the article summarily FAILed, since it appeared to be close to GA quality. Anyway, I've responded to your comments. Don't know if I can renominate it at this point, since it will probably be summarily quick-FAILed for not being out long enough, or somesuch excuse?

Cheers! WTF? (talk) 03:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

We can open it back up, and you can address the issues that I noted there. –MuZemike 04:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I have the Slashdot article (and GAN) watchlisted, so if you want to work on those issues, go ahead, and once they're addressed, I can pass it. –MuZemike 20:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
See my comments at Talk:Slashdot/GA1 on what I've addressed so far. WTF? (talk) 22:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

\o/

HAPPY FIRST EDIT DAY! from the BIRTHDAYCOMMITTEE
WikiThanks.png
Balloons-aj.svg

Wishing MuZemike/Archive 5 a very Happy First Edit Day!

Have a fantastic day!

From the Wikipedia Birthday Committee

Pilif12p 16:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

user:ALBA-BALAMAND

Could you clarify something for me? The SPI on this user has decided that WP:SOCK#LEGIT applies. You appear to have made this judgement. But he is still blocked as a sockpuppet. This confuses me; could you explain, please? --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 17:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The first time I handled the SPI, I did indeed AGF there, but when the second account (User:Markshutter) showed up, something else was going on; Markshutter's pattern exactly matched the other two. –MuZemike 18:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
OK, thanks. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 20:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 May newsletter

Trophy.png

We are half way through round 3, with a little under a month to go. The current overall leader is Hungary Sasata (submissions), who has 570 points. He leads pool C. Pools A, B and D are led by Pennsylvania Hunter Kahn (submissions), Colorado Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) and War ensign of the German Empire Navy 1848-1852.svg White Shadows (submissions) respectively. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Two of last year's final 8, Sweden Theleftorium (submissions) and Iceland Scorpion0422 (submissions), have dropped out of the competition, saying they would rather their place went to someone who will have more time on their hands than them next round. On a related note, a special thank you goes to War ensign of the German Empire Navy 1848-1852.svg White Shadows (submissions) for his help behind the scenes once again. There is currently a problem with the poster, perhaps caused by the new skin- take a look at this discussion and see if you can help. The competition has continued to tick over well with minimal need for judge intervention, so thank you to everyone making that possible. Good luck to all! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 20:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Dr Seeds

Was looking at the contribs to see if you were online (ah, the power of Popups) and see the Happy Birthday post. Was like "oh, it is MuZemike's birthday. Then I seen the "lolsocks" post. Then I got confused...is Dr Seeds User:SGGH? At present, the userpage for Dr Seeds redirects to SGGH. - NeutralHomerTalk • 20:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it's another banned user who has been harassing me as of late. –MuZemike 21:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Just wanted to make sure before I removed the redirect....which I did. - NeutralHomerTalk • 23:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Independent Review Request on Stephens City, Virginia

Hello, I am awaiting an official peer review, but was told by a FAC delegate to get as many people looking at the page as possible. The page just received GA status today. At your earliest convenience, could you take a look at the Stephens City, Virginia page and review it (placing it on the page's talk page or mine is fine) independent of the official peer review. I would open to any and all requests during the review. Thanks...NeutralHomerTalk • 01:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Just lighting this up again in case it got buried. - NeutralHomerTalk • 02:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Probably was the case. A lot of talk page activity the past day or so. –MuZemike 02:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Anyways, hopefully sometime tomorrow I'll get to it (along with a reopened GAN as mentioned above). –MuZemike 02:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Okie Dokie. Just post it on the the Stephens City talk page or mine, whichever is easier. Thanks Dude. :) - NeutralHomerTalk • 02:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Eric Violette

You speedied and salted (I believe) the page on Eric Violette -- way back in January, I think. (I don't get around here much anymore.) Violette is, of all things, the singing pirate in the FreeCreditReport.com commercials -- and I believe there are reliable sources reporting on him because of it. (A Google search turns up a few -- including the Washington Post.) It's the sort of trivia that's perhaps marginal -- I don't think we're going to see him as the next James Bond or anything -- but he's probably famous enough to make an article about him worthy of discussion. Trouble is, the people creating the page seem to be newbies -- so it's created badly, speedied, and then (because it's been deleted multiple times) salted for long periods without anyone ever talking about it. I looked at taking it to deletion review (which I think is the right approach -- it's been a long time since I did much Wiki stuff)...but I've been kinda busy with work lately, so I thought I'd ask you first to get your thoughts. Should we unsalt? Undelete? Other? Best, --TheOtherBob 16:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The thing is that it was deleted so many times, but they were all per WP:CSD#A7, and all the creations (at least when I went back to about 2008 since any other version of the article before that was complete crap) are completely unsourced. If there are reliable sources out there, I ask that they be provided. I'm wary of undeleting because every deleted version is unsourced, and we cannot have that with a biography of a living person (BLP). It's been about 6 months after the salting (the create-protecton is expected to end on 3 January 2011, by the way; I salted for 1 year), and I personally like to avoid going to DRV whenever I can. As an alternative, we could also send to the article incubator so that anyone can work on building sources before it goes back to the mainspace. There are a few options available here. –MuZemike 17:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
On a very quick look, there's this: [10], this: [11], this: [12] (towards the bottom), this: [13], and this: [14]. So that's the Washington Post, USA Today, Miami New Times, Public Radio, and MSNBC -- just on a quick Google. You're right that every deleted version was unsourced -- but I suspect (not having seen them) that they were unsourced because the creators did not understand how or why to add sources, and not because there weren't sources that they could have used if they'd tried. There's definitely enough out there to give us reliable sources for the basic facts, and let us at least discuss notability. The article incubator seems like a good approach -- I can start a bare-bones article there and add the sources, but it may be easier to pull over whatever there was from prior versions (if anything). Best, --TheOtherBob 17:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I restored the article to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Unreferenced BLPs/Eric Violette, and I'm going to keep the salt on the mainspace title until the incubated page is good enough for the mainspace. Hopefully that is satisfactory. –MuZemike 18:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

SCI

Thank you for delaying the investigation, the mediation has nearly concluded, and I see no evidence of socking. Ronk01 (talk) 00:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/James1168

I was looking at this sockpuppet investigation because it related to a block I made recently (more on that in a moment) and I think, being unaware of the background, you have made some errors in your statement here.

I think these two users are unrelated to all the others; there is no similarity apart from having edited the same article:

These five acccounts are obviously the same user:

However, if you look at the contribs of the five users listed above, you'll see that there is no overlap in their periods of use. I think that the individual has created a new account from time to time, unaware of how this might be viewed thought our jaded administrators' spectacles.

Now, back to that block I mentioned earlier..... Here's a different user:

The two above accounts are obviously the same person, but again, I don't think the sockpuppetry is necessarily abusive. However, I blocked the second account for persistent BLP violations in Peter Holmes à Court (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and JzG reblocked him a few days later for the same thing. You'll notice from the talk page and contribs of the first account that this had been going on for some time. You may also have seen that this is the editor who opened the SPI in question.

The subject of the SPI has only edited to remove the problematic material inserted by Everton Dasent/Edasent, even going so far as to report the problem at WP:BLPN and solicit aid from other editors. It is thus unfortunate that you have described his edits as "POV-style edit-warring involving removal of sourced content and entire sections of text", a characterization that I (and, I think a number of other editors who have been involved with Edasent) might take not agree with.

I hope that you will review your comments at the SPI and consider that it may be appropriate to unblock the most recent of the accounts on the basis that this is a good faith, if naive, editor.

CIreland (talk) 01:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's my issue. Even if you disregard the first two which you separated, now you're left with a person creating and abandoning four separate accounts within the past 12 months. I can AGF on someone forgetting a password once and even stretch it to twice, but not four times within a year. That's when I start to suspect other things, like avoiding scrutiny or trying to cover up tracks when someone gets suspicious. That is within both the letter and spirit of what sock puppetry entails.
I may have extended too far by implying POV, (That was my read of the situation.) but the fact remains that content was still being removed, and the user has not been engaging in any discussion on the matter. POV or not, its (very slow) edit warring.
That being said, after taking a second look, I have unblocked the first two accounts as it looks like they're likely unrelated. I think one of the edits from those two raised a red flag as it was similar in nature to the other five, but I can see that may not be conclusive.
However, I am leaving Birkenstock (the most recent account) blocked for the time being. I will not oppose an unblock, provided the person does not keep abandoning and creating new accounts in a way that seems deceptive. –MuZemike 01:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I understand completely your suspicions, my only question would be, what scrutiny is it that they could be trying to avoid? For want of a better term, they are the "good guy" here - they reported the BLP issue as best they knew how and reverted an attempt to turn a biography into a hatchet-job - the kind of edits they were making are explicitly exempt from sanction for edit-warring. I think the best course of action might be to leave a note on the most account's talk page, asking them to edit from only that account going forward and offering to unblock them when they indicate that they will do so.
Of course, if there are no further issues with the Peter Holmes à Court article, they may see no reason to edit again and so all this may be moot. CIreland (talk) 01:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I left a conditional note on Berkinstock's talk page. If I don't catch him agreeing and you do, I don't mind you unblocking. –MuZemike 01:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, and sorry for being such a stickler (and general pain in the behind). CIreland (talk) 01:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Help

Need some help with a user. User:ImperfectlyInformed seems to be obsessed with me to the point of WikiStalking (always wanted a stalker). But it is becoming boring. Could you take a look at this thread through the "courtesy break" and possibly do something with II to keep him away from my edits and away from me. If needed, I will provide a list of the places he has popped up via email. - NeutralHomerTalk • 04:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah and sorry to hear about your unsuccessful CU bid. You would have made a good CU. - NeutralHomerTalk • 04:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
First off, thanks. As far as II is concerned, there's nothing stopping you from not battling with him on his talk page. In simpler words, try and ignore him. If he wants to continue in his harassment or stalking, then he'd bring the ball to your talk page or do other idiotic stuff like revert all your changes (or take you to ANI, fearing to mention that per WP:BEANS). Anyways, if you want to send me an email, go ahead. –MuZemike 04:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I was kinda feeding that one admittedly. I will take him off my watchlist so I am not tempted to respond back. If he comes to my talk page, I can just revert him. I will email you posthaste. - NeutralHomerTalk • 04:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Email sent. Just a note. I seen you are on the Good Article Project. You might want to know that GAN is in a pretty good backlog. There are articles that have been awaiting review for awhile, one sitting there for 109 days. Wow. I have posted a request on ANI for help and there has been some, but since you are an admin, you might ask some admin friends or just regular editor friends to help out. Reviewing is pretty easy. I even did one :) - NeutralHomerTalk • 04:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
109? Damn. I thought we left that behind in the previous GAN backlog drive... –MuZemike 04:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Sadly, no. Someone told me it was up to 450 articles before, so it is consideribly down. It is 168 waiting for review at last check (could have changed since). - NeutralHomerTalk • 04:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
So you're just going to uncritically say that I am stalking and harassing the guy? Could you explain your reasoning? WP:STALKING is a pretty good summary of what is stalking and what is not. If there's no overriding reason, you could make a case. In this case the overring reason is watching for edit-warring and harassment by a user, which is not an unjustified use of the contribs log. It's just a pro-active step to protect users from harassment and biting. It acts as a deterrent - since he knows someone is keeping an eye on him, he'll behave a bit better. If all goes well, I will never step in and revert an edit or report him on edit-warring. I've already told him that when he admits his issues I'll stop watching his edits. In general I'm watching his edits and occasionally commenting in the same pages but haven't engaged with him at all (aside from an offhand comment that I consider him bannable at WP:AN, which was possibly in bad taste but not out of the question when discussing problem editors) or reverted a single one yet, as can be seen if you look at the thread on my user page. If I do see an edit that I think is a problem, I'll drop a note on his talk page. If he doesn't respond or deletes the comment, I may be compelled to bring it to ANI. II | (t - c) 04:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Wow. I wonder if I should add this to the report. Just wow. You have just admitted to WikiStalking on an admin's talk page. This one, I think might have to go into the record books folks. Also, I have a psychologist so I will behave better, I don't need a stalker. I also have two parents, I don't need a third. Why don't you leave the "keeping an eye" on me to the people like MuZemike and others whose job it is to keep an eye on all editors, not just me. Oh, and if you post to my talk page, I can technically remove the comment per WP:BLANKING and userpage rules and you can't do a damned thing. When I remove it, that means I have seen it, acknowledged it, and felt it wasn't worth responding. I don't have to respond to damned thing if I don't want to. Looks bad on me. But blackmailing me with ANI really isn't going to make me respond. Just cause I don't respond, you will go to ANI? OK, go for it. You will be laughed out of the Wiki. If everyone went to ANI with all the times someone didn't respond to their talkpage post, ANI would be full to the brim and overflowing. The little orange bar only tells you the most recent post. You and someone else post, I see one bar...and will probably only look at one message. Plus, with the two rules I quoted, I don't have to respond, especially if I am going to get sucked into another pissing match. So...there ya go. Now, I got article work to do, so...yeah. - NeutralHomerTalk • 05:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Both of you, knock it off, or I will go to WP:ANI for both of you. –MuZemike 07:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Karunyan socks

From the last SPI two range blocks were initiated to try to deal with this guy. Both have since expired, and he's back again, with 59.96.28.138 (talk · contribs) and then as soon as it was tagged, he jumped to 59.96.140.215 (talk · contribs) to continue his campaign of harassing me, including trying to impersonate me on my own talk page[15]. Would it be possible to reapply the range blocks? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 08:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

[16] is within the /16 range, which I do not think is involved. I'd be causing a good amount of collateral damage as shown here. I think the only other alternative would be to semi-protect right now. –MuZemike 08:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Pooh...that sucks :-( Wonder if that is where he is editing from...if he is a high schooler, it would at least explain some of his issues. So can the list and my talk be semi-protected for awhile, then, so he at least is without some targets, and can the current IP be blocked as he is still trolling[17]. Looks like he made a new named sock, too User:Karunyam, that he used to uploaded those fake pics. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 08:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
All should be blocked, tagged, protected, and deleted. –MuZemike 08:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. The fake images were a new touch. *sigh* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 08:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Thought you might like to know, he reappeared, made a spoof account of my old name, and made a fake RfC against another editor. I started an ANI asking for options and giving some of the recent history.[18] -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Stephens City PR #2

I have some comments and questions posted here when you have some free time. I am still working on the other areas that haven't been checked. - NeutralHomerTalk • 01:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KingOfTheLynn

Would you go back and take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KingOfTheLynn? It looks like another sockpuppet has been uncovered which I believe throws doubt on your AGF conclusion. Thanks. --Simple Bob (talk) 07:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Peter Holmes a Court

Hello. You have been canvassed by another editor/admin regarding my contributions to the Peter Holmes a Court entry. This page has become contentious again and there are now some editors banning contributors for posting referenced material, not the other way around. Many of the recent edits replaced verified links and referenced material. Some of the most recent deleted material is the most up to date available about the subject. I would like to be able to contribute to this entry and others without the threat of being banned by contributors with greater powers, however at the moment I risk banning even if I touch the entry. Please have a look at the entry and the edit history if you have the time.Edasent (talk) 15:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

As far as sockpuppetry is concerned, you may have been hit by a sleeper sock in Greg Barry (talk · contribs), as the user all of a sudden resumed editing again with similar patterns by the other socks. The problem is that CheckUser would not be able to go that far back (i.e. to 2009) to see if there are any other matches due to software limitations. All I can say right now is to be on the lookout for accounts that were seemingly abandoned and then, all of a sudden, come back. –MuZemike 15:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Slashdot GA

Thanks! I noticed you added the small GA icon to the upper right corner. Did GA start adding those? I seem to recall the "Great Green Dot Debate" was pretty contentious,. . . WTF? (talk) 16:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Yep, looks like a rough consensus was achieved within the past month to include them in the article (see WT:WPGA for the full dicsussion). –MuZemike 16:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Protection of AN

May I respectfully say that the edit-war on AN was over the deletion of a discussion. If you protect the page without that discussion visible you may be taken (by myself for a start!) to endorse its removal.

I know that generally, protecting admins try to do The Wrong Version for propriety etc., but I am outraged at how inappropriate the removals of the section were, and I would urge you to replace it or invite another neutral admin to replace it. Best, ╟─TreasuryTagsheriff─╢ 22:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that AN needed to be protected, but I think you protected the wrong version. IMO one should not be able to remove a complaint from AN. Now, the person who raised the complaint can be slapped down and heck if necessary get a warning him/herself, but I think the complaint should remain... and let those who want to remove it criticize the person who is raising the subject. AN is supposed to be a place where people can go to raise issues/concerns/complaints. Where do they go if they that gets reverted repeatedly? I won't wheel war with ya, but think you should restore the complaint. I also think when the protection is removed, that a comment warning that removing the section will result in a block.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I concur, as I said just above :) ╟─TreasuryTagTellers' wands─╢ 22:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I shall now proceed to replace WP:AN with File:The_Wrong_Version.svg. J.delanoygabsadds 22:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Doesn't matter to me. In any case, the full-protection will expire in a little less than 8 minutes. The revert-warring needs to stop, above anything else. I think blocking all involved parties would only piss people off more, but something had to be done. –MuZemike 22:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
We would only block people if they continue to remove the complaint. One should not be able to simply quell a complaint by removing it and then crying "3RR."---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
On the contrary, that's the approach I'm going to take next time somebody starts a thread about me! ╟─TreasuryTagassemblyman─╢ 22:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Isn't it clearly correct that the subject of an ANI doesn't get to just delete a thread about him or indeed that no one is allowed to just delete a thread without consensus? Doesn't that make it obvious whom to block if it continues? -Rrius (talk) 22:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
The protection should have expired by now. That being said, if they add the discussion back in, OK. But anymore reverting on top of that, I would consider blockable at this point. Anyways, I'm done with this situation as I've already done my thing. –MuZemike 22:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
It should also be fairly obvious that 1) the subject of the thread did not violate 3RR, 2) other people than the subject removed the thread, and 3) Muzemike's options were a) protect the page and b) block everyone involved. I seriously dare you to publicly say that you would have chosen to block Giano, MZMcBride, Gwen Gale, MickMacNee, and TreasuryTag instead of protecting the page. J.delanoygabsadds 22:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I think the suggestion (at least mine) was that he protect the page + replace the thread, rather than just protecting the page. ╟─TreasuryTagRegent─╢ 22:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I have no problem saying that I would have had no problem issuing a warning and then blocking the next person to remove the complaint---regardless of who it was. I also would not have protected the version without the complaint.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Bot question

Hey MuZe. Can you use your bot to alert Wikiproject Futurama's participants? I'm planning to revive the Wikiproject. GamerPro64 (talk) 20:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I can do that for you. Just send me what type of message you want sent, and I can send them with my bot. –MuZemike 21:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
What do you mean? DO I e-mail you or post my message here? GamerPro64 (talk) 21:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Either/or is fine. –MuZemike 22:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I e-mailed the rough draft to you. GamerPro64 (talk) 22:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
OK, thank you. I'll have to wait on the bot sending it for a while since it's normally not good to have a bot do stuff during peak server times (like starting now and for the next 8 hours or so). –MuZemike 22:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
One last question (or maybe not). Can you delete this? The article's gone but not its talk page. GamerPro64 (talk) 23:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Yep, WP:CSD#G8. Done. –MuZemike 23:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

It should be done, now. I delivered to all talk pages on that list except the indefinitely blocked ones, of course. –MuZemike 07:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I should probably removed the blocked users now. GamerPro64 (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:

  • All editors who are party to this case are instructed to read the principles, to review their own past conduct in the light of them, and if necessary to modify their future conduct to ensure full compliance with them.
  • Editors are reminded that when editing in controversial subject areas it is all the more important to comply with Wikipedia policies. In addition, editors who find it difficult to edit a particular article or topic from a neutral point of view and to adhere to other Wikipedia policies are counselled that they may sometimes need or wish to step away temporarily from that article or subject area, and to find other related but less controversial topics in which to edit.
  • Any uninvolved administrator may, in his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor editing Transcendental meditation or other articles concerning Transcendental meditation and related biographies of living people, broadly defined, if, after a warning, that editor repeatedly or seriously violates the behavioural standards or editorial processes of Wikipedia in connection with these articles.
  • Uninvolved administrators are invited to monitor the articles in the area of conflict to enforce compliance by editors with, in particular, the principles outlined in this case. Enforcing administrators are instructed to focus on fresh and clear-cut matters arising after the closure of this case rather than on revisiting historical allegations.
  • From time to time, the conduct of editors within the topic may be re-appraised by any member of the Arbitration Committee and, by motion of the Arbitration Committee, further remedies may be summarily applied to specific editors who have failed to conduct themselves in an appropriate manner.
  • User:Fladrif is (i) strongly admonished for incivility, personal attacks, and assumptions of bad faith; and (ii) subject to an editing restriction for one year. Should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After three blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month.
  • Should any user subject to a restriction or topic ban in this case violate that restriction or ban, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year, with the topic ban clock restarting at the end of the block.

For and on behalf of the Arbitration Committee Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 18:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Andres_SCV

The arbitration is now closed on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-05-11/Sodalitium_Christianae_Vitae . Can the SPI be reopened? Jorgecatolica1 (talk) 22:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

If you folks feel that there is still suspicions of sock puppetry, then that's fine. –MuZemike 22:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi MuZemike,

I reverted the SPI page. Jorgecatolica1 (talk) 03:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, that's fine. –MuZemike 04:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Risen (video game)

Hello. The anonymous user 66.227.196.207, whom you have blocked is vandalizing again, Sir Lothar (talk) 07:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked 1 month. –MuZemike 14:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Inniverse

Think there's enough to go on to block Inniverse as an Asziz sock? I'd go ahead, but I'm confused as to why it hasn't already been done.—Kww(talk) 05:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not going to comment on any recommendations on blocking, besides the statement that I made that I think it is likely (probably more so after the CU results). I cannot do any blocks in this case as I am and have been involved in his SPI cases over the past year and a half. –MuZemike 06:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Blocked. I have no previous involvement, and I'm convinced.—Kww(talk) 14:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
MuZemike, you may want to be aware of this. Montanabw(talk) 07:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I know about it and have read it. Again, having been involved with the user the past year or so including way back when I was a non-admin, I'll comment when I have to. Right now, I have nothing so far to add, as a lot of the stuff I said has been said either in the relevant SPI cases or repeated in the ANI. –MuZemike 07:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

bot

oh please open my bot. my speed was very very low :( Abraham (talk) 21:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

This is being discussed at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard; you may wish to comment over there as I was just informed about the conversation going on there. –MuZemike 21:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
ok, thank you, there is anyway to my bot be opened? Can you help me? pleaseAbraham (talk) 21:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Your bot was not approved by the Bot Approvals Group nor flagged as a bot by a bureaucrat, which we must do per our local bot policy. I also note that your bot is not listed as one of the global bots.
You can do one of two things:
  1. Get your bot approved on the English Wikipedia through Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval. There, it will be reviewed and, if good, a bureaucrat will flag your bot, giving your bot the "Bot" userright.
  2. Get your bot globally approved on Meta at m:Steward requests/Bot status#Global bot requests. (I'm not very familiar with how they operate on Meta, but I believe that is where you would need to go.)
Hopefully that helps a bit. Again, sorry about the block on the bot, but we have to do that per our policy. –MuZemike 21:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
ok, thank you.Abraham (talk) 21:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
please unblock my bot i will not run till i got approval by Bot Approvals GroupAbraham (talk) 22:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
It will be unblocked when it gets approved. –MuZemike 22:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
sorry , i just didn't know the procudure . know i am aware please unblock it and don't turn it to drama , it is very simple "now i am informed about the enwiki procedure" . and the point of blocking is this , so keeping my bot doesn't solve anythingAbraham (talk) 22:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Again, I am not going to unblock your bot, especially if it is unapproved. –MuZemike 22:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
It should be ok to unblock it pending approval as long as it doesn't run. –xenotalk 14:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
OK, Xeno, I've unblocked the bot per your suggestion. Ebraminio, just make sure it's not used until it is approved (unless you're doing some approved test run or similar). –MuZemike 15:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
And apologies if I was sounding a bit blunt there. –MuZemike 16:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
thank you :) Abraham (talk) 21:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

JzG Guy Peter Holmes a Court and Sockpuppetry

Would you have a look at the relationship between JzG and Guy ? They seem to be hell bent on blocking people who try to edit Peter Holmes a Court which was the focus of a sockpuppet case involving Berkinstock who complained to JzG to get their edits backed up by blocking users. Thanks. Edasent (talk) 13:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

They are one in the same. He uses "Guy" as his signature for "JzG". There is only one account, which is "JzG"; User talk:Guy redirects to User talk:JzG. –MuZemike 14:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
And also, looking at Greg Barry (talk · contribs), are you sure that's also a sock? This user wasn't deleting stuff as with the other socks, and there is overlap from time to time. Unless JzG saw a similarity, after comparing a couple of the previously-blocked socks to this one, I'm not seeing much for similarity. –MuZemike 14:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

No I think Greg Barry is separate. He has added referenced material and used what I thought was quite neutral language to the entry but was recently blocked indefinitely. I left a note on his talk page but I don't think he has logged on since then. I don't really understand why he was blocked. I can understand the issues with warring which I fell into, but I then became aware of the sockpuppetry so it made a bit more sense. Thanks for having a look at this, it has become quite frustrating. Edasent (talk) 00:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Favor?

Hey MuZemike, Given as you falsely implicated me in a SP investigation I figure you owe me one! (but seriously, no hard feelings) I'm curious if you would cast your experienced eye on Special:Contributions/DePiep and Special:Contributions/Urgenine for me. Thanks, NickCT (talk) 17:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I hope you're not taking that to heart. Anyways, you're right; the latter is certainly interesting. Judging from this, you think WP:MEAT at least? –MuZemike 17:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Hey Muz. Forgive me for being stupid, but how does the link you provided suggest WP:MEAT? I was really looking at the timing of the contributions (see below), and the fact that they comment at one point on the same thing. NickCT (talk) 20:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Depi 19:11, 8 June 2010 (diff | hist) User:DePiep ‎ (top)
Depi 19:07, 8 June 2010 (diff | hist) m Template:Braille ‎ (top)
Depi 19:06, 8 June 2010 (diff | hist) m Template:Braille ‎
Depi 19:03, 8 June 2010 (diff | hist) m User:DePiep/NiceToSee ‎ (top)
Depi 18:42, 8 June 2010 (diff | hist) UTF-16/UCS-2 ‎ (→See also: +plane) (top)
Depi 18:36, 8 June 2010 (diff | hist) m Template:Unicode navigation ‎ (top)
Depi 17:44, 8 June 2010 (diff | hist) Talk:Anat Kamm ‎ (→Requested Move: details)
Urge 17:10, 8 June 2010 (diff | hist) Talk:Kahi (entertainer) ‎ (top)
Urge 17:06, 8 June 2010 (diff | hist) Talk:Kahi (entertainer) ‎
Depi 17:02, 8 June 2010 (diff | hist) m Talk:Anat Kamm ‎ (→Requested Move: add request for argumentation)
Urge 17:00, 8 June 2010 (diff | hist) Talk:Iudaea Province ‎ (→Requested move) (top)
Urge 16:57, 8 June 2010 (diff | hist) Talk:Cornell Notes ‎ (→Requested move) (top)
Urge 16:55, 8 June 2010 (diff | hist) m Talk:Cha Hyun Ok ‎
Urge 16:54, 8 June 2010 (diff | hist) Talk:Cha Hyun Ok ‎ (→Requested move)
Urge 16:54, 8 June 2010 (diff | hist) Talk:Kahi (entertainer) ‎
Urge 16:53, 8 June 2010 (diff | hist) Talk:Kahi (entertainer) ‎ (→Move?)
Urge 16:53, 8 June 2010 (diff | hist) Talk:Anat Kamm ‎
Urge 16:51, 8 June 2010 (diff | hist) Talk:Rain (entertainer) ‎ (→Move?) (top)
Urge 16:49, 8 June 2010 (diff | hist) m Seven Natural Wonders of Romania ‎ (top)
Urge 16:49, 8 June 2010 (diff | hist) m Oltul Mic River ‎ (top)
(User creation log); 16:45 . . Urgenine (talk | contribs) new user account
Depi 16:37, 8 June 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Od Mishehu ‎ (→Relisting Category:Pan-Unicode typefaces: re: now it's OK)

That was Urgenine's third edit, to !vote "support" in a move discussion. Of course, it is possible that he may be unrelated, but it's also very much possible that 1) somebody recruited him to support another editor or viewpoint and/or to assist in votestacking (hence why I mentioned meatpuppetry), or 2) we have socks. –MuZemike 20:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Hey MuZemike, I'm still a little confused. I've voted several times in move discussions before b/c I was going through the move list...... actually looking at this again, two of the move requests Urenine voted in were started by User:EunSoo, a confirmed puppet.
Either way, I'm going to wait to here if Urenine of Depiep has any explination for the suspisous timing of thier edits before launching an investigation. Thanks! NickCT (talk) 20:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
User:Urgenine just got tagged sock of User:EunSoo. I'm curious whether User:DePiep is a sock of EunSoo too..... NickCT (talk) 20:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 Confirmed by Amalthea as a sock and blocked. –MuZemike 20:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Did I file this correctly? NickCT (talk) 21:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Everything looks OK, except next time leave the heading box blank when submitting, as L2 headings bork up the table of contents on the WP:SPI page. –MuZemike 21:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Roger that. Thanks. NickCT (talk) 21:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

AN/I 10 June 2010

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Anthony (talk) 20:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Where at? –MuZemike 20:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
That's what I said. He's just posted a load of these but hasn't edited ANI. Verbal chat 20:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Voting

Hi, thanks for letting the bot post that interesting note about the GA elimination drive on my talk. I saw you're an eligible voter for Picture of the Year 2009, so please support the one you like best. I think by participating we can show how we value the free content contributed. Best Hekerui (talk) 17:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

can you open a SPI case?

User Schrandit has been a POV edit-warrior, in my opinion, for a long time and I met him when he started edit warring on several pages including Equality Mississippi to keep removing sources while asking for citations at the same time! Recently on Heteronormativity, a subject he apparently also disapproves of, two socks have shown up that only agree with him and also try to remove content and mitigate the subject's impact. I tried to open a case but could only see the source code page. The two socks are Badtoaster and Paperbeatsrock, before my posting here they have only been editing on this one article and all to dismiss critical comments on the tendentious editing of Schrandit. Can you help open a case? 71.139.29.193 (talk) 10:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Howdy mike, this anon showed up a few weeks ago editing from a few different ips and has been inserting him/her self into a few discussions on contentious talk pages (namely Talk:Heteronormativity. He/she has impugned upon the credibility of a few new users who disagree with him/her by accusing them of being socks of myself. Maybe a SPI would be benificial if for nothing other than to restore full community faith to the two new users tainted by these accuisations? - Schrandit (talk) 11:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I've created the case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Schrandit for the IP, using the comment above. –MuZemike 15:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. - Schrandit (talk) 20:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you MuZemike. Schrandit is a sneaky POV-pusher I've recently caught removing sources or deleting content he apparently doesn't like on many articles. He's likely smart enough not to blatantly sock but the three of them together just as Schrandit was being shut down on this one article was too compelling not to look into. It won't restore any credibility to POV-pushers but if there is an obvious sock it would help clear up some of the gameplaying. Schrandit's interpretation of events of me "inserting" myself into conversations is completely false. I caught him deleting LGBT category off this article and he edit-warred on it even after multiple sources supported it's inclusion. Now he's trying to get another category removed, again, even after sourced content has made it clear it belongs. 71.139.29.193 (talk) 17:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 June 3

Hi, MZM. I'm contacting you because an uninvolved admin who's familiar with DRV.

I'm a bit worried about Spartaz' closure of the Norway Spiral.jpg DRV. It doesn't seem to me that the DRV was closed in accordance with the consensus, but I'm reluctant to go to Spartaz' talk page again unless I'm sure he's wrong, because I've already challenged Spartaz over another recent DRV and I don't want to come across as harassing the poor guy. (Normally I'd go to Stifle, but Stifle !voted in that DRV.) Would you mind taking a look and letting me know what you think?—S Marshall T/C 16:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I left a message on his talk page to urge him to reconsider his close. –MuZemike 16:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Grab some glory, and a barnstar

Hi, I'd like to invite you to participate in the Guild of Copy Editors July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive. In May, about 30 editors helped remove the {{copyedit}} tag from 1175 articles. The backlog is still over 7500 articles, and extends back to the beginning of 2008! We really need your help to reduce it. Copyediting just a couple articles can qualify you for a barnstar. Serious copyeditors can win prestigious and exclusive rewards. See the event page for more information. And thanks for your consideration. monosock 04:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Why am I getting this message? Mono's delivery method is random, so you probably showed up somewhere Mono went. :)

DRV close for File:NorwaySpiral.jpg

Not noticing that you had already taken issue with this close I added another section on Spartaz's talk page. I would recommend that you take up their invitation and make a reclose. __meco (talk) 07:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Now I notice you have a section on this above as well. Oh well.. __meco (talk) 07:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I've sent the matter to WP:AN. –MuZemike 07:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Ninja Gaiden is now an FA

If you're just tuning in, here's some good news for you and your FAC. Well done. --an odd name 23:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change

An Arbitration request in which you are involved has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Workshop.

Additionally, please note that for this case specific procedural guidelines have been stipulated; if you have any questions please ask. The full outline is listed on the Evidence and Workshop pages, but please adhere to the basics:

  • The issues raised in the "Sock Puppet Standards of Evidence" and "Stephen Schultz and Lar" requests may be raised and addressed in evidence in this case if (but only if) they have not been resolved by other means.
  • Preparation of a formal list of "parties to the case" will not be required.
  • Within five days from the opening of the case, participants are asked to provide a listing of the sub-issues that they believe should be addressed in the committee's decision. This should be done in a section of the Workshop page designated for that purpose. Each issue should be set forth as a one-sentence, neutrally worded question—for example:
    • "Should User:X be sanctioned for tendentious editing on Article:Y"?
    • "Has User:Foo made personal attacks on editors of Article:Z?"
    • "Did Administrator:Bar violate the ABC policy on (date)?"
    • "Should the current community probation on Global Warming articles by modified by (suggested change)?"
The committee will not be obliged to address all the identified sub-issues in its decision, but having the questions identified should help focus the evidence and workshop proposals.
  • All evidence should be posted within 15 days from the opening of the case. The drafters will seek to move the case to arbitrator workshop proposals and/or a proposed decision within a reasonable time thereafter, bearing in mind the need for the committee to examine what will presumably be a very considerable body of evidence.
  • Participants are urgently requested to keep their evidence and workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible.
  • The length limitation on evidence submissions is to be enforced in a flexible manner to maximize the value of each user's evidence to the arbitrators. Users who submit overlength diatribes or repetitious presentations will be asked by the clerks to pare them. On the other hand, the word limit should preferably not be enforced in a way that hampers the reader's ability to evaluate the evidence.
  • All participants are expected to abide by the general guideline for Conduct on arbitration pages, which states:
  • Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in Arbitration as in all other areas of Wikipedia.
  • Until this case is decided, the existing community sanctions and procedures for Climate change and Global warming articles remain in full effect, and editors on these articles are expected to be on their best behavior.
  • Any arbitrator, clerk, or other uninvolved administrator is authorized to block, page-ban, or otherwise appropriately sanction any participant in this case whose conduct on the case pages departs repeatedly or severely from appropriate standards of decorum. Except in truly egregious cases, a warning will first be given with a citation to this notice. (Hopefully, it will never be necessary to invoke this paragraph.)

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (utc) 00:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

FAC congrats

Congrats on Ninja Gaiden being a Featured Article. Also, what kind of drinks? GamerPro64 (talk) 02:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, we may have to stick with root beer unfortunately, given the diverse age group we have ;) –MuZemike 02:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Your FA

Seen this on my watchlist. Congrats Dude! :) Nicely done! Do you know when it will be featured on the main page? - NeutralHomerTalk • 02:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't know. That depends on everyone else. However, knowing Raul, he tends to favor placing newly-promoted video game FAs on the Main Page, so we'll see what happens. Not that I'm terribly looking forward to it, with the vandalism and all that stuff. –MuZemike 02:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
If it were up to me, I'd put Ninja Gaiden up on talk like a pirate day to throw and/or piss people off. Alternately, show Blackbeard on that day and Gaiden the next. :) --an odd name 02:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I will also note that, not counting Marble Madness (which was originally an arcade game and was merely ported to the NES), Ninja Gaiden is currently the only NES title that is a featured article. –MuZemike 03:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer

Thanks, but what does a reviewer do, or have rights to do? Blake (Talk·Edits) 22:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Basically, when the "Pending Changes" trial starts on 15 June, some articles may be protected differently than normally is. On those articles, an edit may be may made, but that change will not appear in the article; instead, in the article's history, that edit will be flagged as "pending review" (hence the original term "Flagged protection"). Having the reviewer right, you have the ability to approve said edits. Approving an edit will make that edit visible for the world to see. As mentioned on the top of my pages, it's intended as a smarter way to do article protection and to try and allow good edits from IPs and new users while keeping out the crap edits. –MuZemike 22:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh, that is an awesome idea. Blake (Talk·Edits) 02:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Looks like Blake already asked, so I'll ask a follow up question. How do we "approve" edits? Will we have a new button or link some where? (Guyinblack25 talk 15:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC))
As far as I know, it will be on the article's history page and also on the upper-right corner of the page where other stuff such as GA stars, FA stars, locks, etc. would be located (from looking at a test page here). –MuZemike 15:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
That looks simple enough. Thanks. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC))

SALT Ryan berg

Ryan berg has been deleted four times... any chance of WP:SALTing it? — Timneu22 · talk 16:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I just indefinitely blocked the creator as a VOA. –MuZemike 16:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good, just as long as we're sure that guy was the only editor. — Timneu22 · talk 16:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Pending Changes question

I'm confused MuZe. I asked for permission for reviewer user rights and Xeno told me you gave me permission yesterday. GamerPro64 (talk) 19:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

He found you on a list of potentials, see [19]. –xenotalk 19:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, I'm flattered. Thank you, MuZe. GamerPro64 (talk) 19:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked user might have accepted your offer

II wanted to leave you a note to ensure that you see the latest at User talk:Berkinstock; it took so long for the user to come up with it that I thought you might overlook it. It's in your hands. Accounting4Taste:talk 02:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Unblocked. –MuZemike 02:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Victor9876

What on earth was that all about? HalfShadow 07:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know; he went absolutely ape, I think. –MuZemike 07:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I believe he said something on Jimbo's page about "banning himself"; perhaps he did those things because he wanted to draw a block. If so, I guess he achieved his goal. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Just wanted to say thanks for granting my request for reviewer permissions. I'll do my best to keep our protected articles high-quality and up to date. Robofish (talk) 01:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I'm confident that you will. –MuZemike 01:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Irritated

MuZe, I'm irritated. I'm trying to review the Solar System and I have no idea what to do to review it. GamerPro64 (talk) 01:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

No, no, no, that's not PC-protected. Only the articles listed at Special:StablePages are protected so far. Every day, another dozen or so articles will be added to that. As far as video game articles are concerned, only RuneScape is under pending changes; since WoW: WotLK is now unprotected, Halo 3 World of Warcraft is planned to go under pending changes at about this time tomorrow.
Also, don't worry right now about the lack of edits needing approval, as there aren't many right now. It will probably pick up as more articles get PC-protected. –MuZemike 01:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Then why is it even on there for day one? GamerPro64 (talk) 02:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Also, I found out where to review (I don't read the bottom). GamerPro64 (talk) 02:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Because it was just added about an hour ago [20]. There's still discussion ongoing on the Queue's talk page as to whether or not to PC-protect that along with George W. Bush. –MuZemike 02:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh. I should probably watchlist the Queue. As a token for my appreciation, here's a great podcast. GamerPro64 (talk) 02:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Q

Hi -- could you give me an idea whether or not this "reviewer-right" is in any way useful during vandal-patrol or will simply reverting reverting do the trick as well? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

How I understand it is that it would just be rejected. If the vandalism is one single edit or a group of edits by the same user, and you revert all the way back to the previous stable (reviewed) version, then the software would automatically mark as reviewed (as there would be no change). A good example of this is the Rush Limbaugh page history. –MuZemike 02:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Makes sense. So I guess I'll just keep doing what I've been doing. Thanks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Now, if you see a vandalism edit inbetween a series of good edits pending review, then you have no choice but to reject; you shouldn't revert as good edits are in there. –MuZemike 02:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, I'm asking 'cause I'm wondering whether or not I'd need that flag. 'Cause I'm gonna ask for it if it's just another... userbox on my page. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Here is an example of "pending changes" in action on the Rush Limbaugh article. Admin MuZemike changed its protection to "pending changes" on 00:37, 16 June. Since MuZemike is an administrator, his edits are automatically accepted. Next note the IP 216.38.133.254, who makes one edit and then immediately self-reverts; since there is no net change, the software automatically marks the reversion as "automatically accepted". Then, IP 71.198.146.11 makes an edit; it looks good, and MuZemike (a "reviewer" by default as he is an administrator) approves the edit.


(very explicit, didn't expect you to go through the trouble of a screenshot and all that) yeah, I've seen that. all trial articles are on my watchlist, and I've been observing what it looks like. Thanks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh

Just noticed that this edit by an anonymous editor was marked as "automatically accepted". I thought that one had to have reviewer rights (and obviously an account) for something to be auto-accepted? Perhaps this is a bug? WTF? (talk) 03:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind. I see now that my question has been answered by the post immediately above this,. . . ;-) WTF? (talk) 03:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Block tag removal

Hello MuZemike, first, you did the right thing in blocking me, second, should I remove the block tag, or is that an admins duty? I ask as a means to prevent further problems. Thanks! Victor9876 (talk) 14:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

You may remove the block notice if you like. –MuZemike 15:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

"Reviewer" user right

Hi,

Have been looking for details on the criteria for the "Reviewer" user right - I am almost sure that I read someware about +2,500 edits and 1+ years of edits - is this the case ?

Thanks

Codf1977 (talk) 15:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no hard minimum for the userright, but users generally must be experienced enough to understand vandalism and all the other stuff under Wikipedia:Reviewing#Becoming a reviewer. Such "hard minimum" may have been discussed in one of our numerous RFCs we've had, but there has been do definitive consensus on anything like that. –MuZemike 15:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, that must have been ware I picked it up. Given that I feel i meet everything in Wikipedia:Reviewing#Becoming a reviewer, and have rollback already - I will go head and ask. Codf1977 (talk) 15:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
You're good enough for it. I've granted you that userright. –MuZemike 15:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank You. Codf1977 (talk) 16:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

User:TheRighteousFleshDevil‎ deletion

Could you delete User:TheRighteousFleshDevil‎, as the revision history is less than desirable, and replace it with the indef notice mono 01:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

2 revisions deleted using WP:REVDEL. –MuZemike 01:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. mono 01:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

IP CU / unblock

Thanks for the CU followup and prompt response. I have apologized to the IP for the mistake. Have a good night! Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

98.82.3.81

The anon has become disruptive and slightly stalking. Coming onto an article I frequent often and removing information from it (1, 2). When directed to the page where the term came from, he deleted it too. This is clear disruptive editing and stalking, since you don't just popup on the Stephens City, Virginia article out of the 3 million+. Since you removed his block previously, I will leave this one to you. - NeutralHomerTalk • 04:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I cannot find the proper term for "250th anniversary" either; doesn't make sense since sesquicentennial (150th anniversary) wouldn't be as important, but I'm not a subject-matter expert on this. If only one could find the term for "25th anniversary", one could easily replace "centennial" for "millennial" for "250th anniversary". –MuZemike 04:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I was using the source "bicenquinquagenary", but the source was dropped as not necessary and the goofiness of the word was changed for the current "semiquincentennial" which is listed on the Anniversary page. Regardless, this is disruptive editing as it is being done to get a response out of me. - NeutralHomerTalk • 04:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Left a comment here. –MuZemike 04:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

MuZemike, I understand your concern; please see the post that I made on NeutralHomer's talk page. I think it will make my intentions very clear, and, I hope and trust, acceptable. 98.82.3.81 (talk) 04:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Now that this has been brought up, it has to be addressed, so if you don't mind, I need some clarification. Should I leave "semiquincentennial", go back to the sourced "bicenquinquagenary", or drop the word altogether and just stick with "250th anniversary"? - NeutralHomerTalk • 04:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Sorry, didn't see your "I ain't here" template at the top. I will direct this at someone else, if you have time, you can answer too. - NeutralHomerTalk • 04:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, I'm heading to bed shortly, anyways. I have a long day planned for tomorrow. –MuZemike 04:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Okie Dokie....I asked GWB (he seemed to be up nights too). Hope you have a good day tomorrow even if it is busy. Take Care Dude. - NeutralHomerTalk • 04:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

User:shiverting101

How would one go about adding the above user to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mario96? 69.181.249.92 (talk) 22:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Add *{{checkip|Shiverting101}} at the bottom of the list of suspected socks on that page.MuZemike 22:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Done. Thanks! (I now see that there's a hidden note explaining the same - wish I'd seen it before bothering you ;) 69.181.249.92 (talk) 22:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

A funny thing happened on the way to my preferences...

So I was looking at my preferences, and what-do-you-know, I saw somebody had made me a reviewer. I hadn't even noticed. AND it was on my three-year, to the day. So I conjured up a little something on my own for you. diffJohnnyMrNinja 08:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Pretty cool. I have to remind myself to get pictures when I get out to the ballpark again. –MuZemike 14:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Is this the right place?

I'm not sure where to mention this, (saw your name on this page) but Keifer Thompson (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log)) is leaving very similar edit summaries as the one left by Kittychem (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log)). APK whisper in my ear 06:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

You may wish to see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scibaby as well as the related ArbCom case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change. –MuZemike 06:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Blocked as a fairly obvious sockpuppet. NW (Talk) 06:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

A question on animated films...

For animated film projects, when is "filming" considered to have begun? Is it with the commencement of character design and actual animation creation involving particpation of director, artists, and animators? Or is it only considered to have "begun" once the animators finish their work and voice actors begin their own contributions to the final product? Thanks Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, looking at what filmmaking says, it's a 5-step process, which suggests that it starts with the writing of the script, including character development and design. Afterwards, backdrops would be set-up, and then voices and sound effects are done and animations are drawn – similar to that of a motion picture. That's just my train of thought, though. –MuZemike 22:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I would consider the writing of the script and the shopping around for studios or investors to be part of pre-production, the hiring of animators and voice actors to be further along and approaching actual production, and the artists then creating the characters and animations to be production... or "the filming"... with the addition of soundtrack and voices being the final step, as many of us have seen those "behind-the-scenes" clips showing an orchestra recording timed music as the animation plays in the background... or voice actors watching their characters on a screen as they add their dialog. Make sense? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I presume that you are trying to figure out how WP:NFF and animation fit together. I think the answer is "uncomfortably". With computer generated films, I think trying to figure out when "principal photography" has begun is a little silly. It's probably worth a complete RFC at the film Wikiproject just to hash it out.—Kww(talk) 23:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Fair presumption... and clarifying definitions as times and means change can indeed be uncomfortable. Back-in-the-day when animators would sit at their tables and create films cell by cell by ardous-hand-drawn-cell, one might consider the artistic involvement of animators and directors in creating the film itself to be part of production or "filming"... and such would not be defined as part of either pre-production nor post-production. With the changes in means-of-creation, what has essentially changed is the time spent in creating those "cells", but one still requiring the involvement of artists at the same point-in-time of production. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I'll add (and interject) that I think modern animation techniques lean closer toward those of motion pictures, especially with the advent of CGI animation and other computer-generated effects. –MuZemike 00:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
And I'll add that I found the article on filmmaking to be enlightening. Thank you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phoebe Dynevor

Consensus was clearly delete not redirect. LibStar (talk) 01:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand that the clear consensus was for the content to be gone, and that has happened. Combined with the one redirect !vote, the term can be used as a plausible search term, and that there is little harm in leaving a redirect behind, I think a redirect accomplishes the desired result which I would have hoped everyone would have agreed with. –MuZemike 01:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
"I would have hoped everyone would have agreed with" that is simply guess work. I'm taking this to Deletion review. LibStar (talk) 01:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Sock

I see that you just blocked User talk:FetchFan21. I have knon him for awhile and he is not a sock of that account. I think you made a mistake. Can you explain what made you think he was a sock.Checker Fred (talk) 15:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid not. He has engaged in the exact same disruptive activity as User:Simulation12 and his socks, including adding unverifiable speculation to FETCH! with Ruff Ruffman (regarding "season 5") and similar articles. –MuZemike 15:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Not to mention FetchFan21's first edits are to add season 5 in the FETCH! article and edit war with AussieLegend over it, just like with all the others. –MuZemike 15:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
okay that was not really an edit war. it was more of an disagreement. He saw a video on somewhere and just put that would be the opening for season 5 as well. Also that made a little more sence after he found out Season 5 of FETCH! is the final season according to WGBH Boston, due to lack of funding. Also a recent edit he did AussieLegend tended to agree in several accepts. He was just reverting those edits from vandals. I don't really think he is a sock. I really think User:Hidividedby5 could be a vandal of a sockChecker Fred (talk) 16:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Knox

I see that you have deleted Amanda Knox. I see you have done it because of policy. Applying the same policy, would you delete John Katehis, Ronald Ebens, and/or Philip Markoff? I see that Amanda Knox is more worthy of an article than these 3 not so notable people. Do not say "go ahead and nominate". I seek understanding of the policy foremost, not nomination. Could Ebens be redirected to Vincent Chin and the two Craigslist (alleged) killers redirected to those murder articles? Thank you. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 01:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

No, and since you don't want me to say what I want to say, I won't say it. –MuZemike 01:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I am very concerned about consistency in Wikipedia. If I nominate any of those 3 articles, people will say I am pointy. I am not pointy. I had real questions about Miss Knox, both in support of an article and in opposition to the article. However, it is really bad if a high profile killer like Knox is denied an article but a lower profile killer gets one.
Since you are an expert on deciding AFD, if one of the three were nominate, what is your gut reaction that the decision to be? AFDs are not a vote so anyone can anticipate the reasoning given...many news reports vs. BLP1E. Would this be more likely to be a delete, in your opinion? Please answer soon because the dramaout is coming in less than 10 days and we are both participating! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Recently-blocked Ryan kirkpatrick

G'day from Oz. While I am quite glad you have blocked Ryan kirkpatrick, I feel that there is little likelihood that he is a sock of Jersay. Ryan kirkpatrick's edits are universally extremely bad, which IMO brings his role on WP into question on the basis of WP:CIR - he clearly isn't competent. However, looking at Jersay's edits s/he is clearly competent: good spelling and grammar, able to articulate her/his ideas clearly. Furthermore, Ryan kirkpatrick's interest has been almost exclusively with aircraft crashes. He has created over 100 articles related to aircraft crashes in the last five months, about a dozen to do with earthquakes (or earthqaukes as he tends to spell it) and one about a car bombing (2010 Newry car bombing); his list of created articles is much shorter than this, as over 20% of the articles he has created have been deleted due to notability issues or to being copyright violations.

Ryan kirkpatrick's first edit to a terrorism-related article wasn't until two weeks after his account was created. His style is very distinctive, for example his contribution to an AfD discussion. Based on his edits it is my belief that he lives in the Wolverhampton area of England, and that he has a connection with Northern Ireland. It appears to me then that there is one of two possibilities: he is being really clever and his edits are deliberately appallingly bad in order to disguise that he is a sock of Jersay, or his and Jersay's interests in terrorism are purely coincidental. As I said at the beginning I am quite glad that he is blocked, but I think it is for the wrong reason. I am also concerned that, given his refusal to engage or deal with any of the issues raised on his talk page, he will just keep on editing as an IP. When he wasn't blocked, people could keep an eye on him and his edits. YSSYguy (talk) 06:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Users can only keep an eye on him as much as users keep an eye on the articles he normally edits. I wish there was a way to set up some edit filter or something else to directly track, but since the specifics behind doing something like that would render it theoretically impossible, I don't think that can be done. –MuZemike 07:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks you

You're welcome. I'm much obliged to do so. –MuZemike 07:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Another thank you

Thanks very much for blocking the socks of User:Taztouzi. Susfele (talk) 16:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

TiffanyTran block

As above, I am really grateful that Taztouzi's socks have been blocked. I am somewhat uncomfortable that User:TiffanyTran got blocked, too. Could you take a look at the info I added at User talk:TiffanyTran#Might not be a sock. I initiated the SPI that got her blocked. I didn't include her, and I think there is a good chance she's not a sock. I pointed the admin who refused her unblock request over there, too. Thanks very much. Susfele (talk) 21:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I have requested a review of the block at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Block review of User:TiffanyTran. –MuZemike 21:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey

Seen this edit and I could sense that things weren't going well in your day....so!

Hope this makes your day better. Take Care....NeutralHomerTalk • 08:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

New Sockpuppet and Checkuser submitted re James1168

I have submitted a new sockpuppet investigation regarding new users and ip addresses related to the James1168 investigation you previously handled. Edasent (talk) 15:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I noticed the same thing as well. –MuZemike 15:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

second opinion

Would you / could you give me a second opinion on this close http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Missing_You_%28The_Saturdays_song%29 Off2riorob (talk) 05:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

My SPI

Thank you. GregJackP Boomer! 19:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Chester F.C. (2010)

Regarding this G8, I think you deleted the wrong talk page! It was Chester F.C. not Chester F.C. (2010) that was deleted at AfD. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I knew I was going to mess something up. Wait, so Talk:Chester F.C. (2010) should be restored in place with nothing else, then? –MuZemike 16:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, the article still exists, and there were some threads on there which were discussing possible improvements to it, so perhaps it should be restored with all its previous content? I'm not entirely familiar with the process but that sounds like the common-sense approach. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Then perhaps I'm not understanding what's being asked. We have two different pages and a clear consensus for deletion. I mean, I can restore the edit history for the Chester F.C. page, but the AFD result would then effectively turn into redirect as opposed to delete. –MuZemike 20:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

E-mail Nuvola apps email.png

You have new Messages. wiooiw (talk) 06:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Ryan kirkpatrick and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jersay

I think I may have made a mistake on this, as new evidence has just come up. While it reasonable that we both assumed that due to the terrorism-focused editing and account creation date that Ryan kirkpatrick was Jersay, I now believe they are in fact different editors. Jersay was in Canada, whereas the edits of 109.154.73.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · edit filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (Great Britain based IP) carry on editing the same articles as Ryan kirkpatrick, in most cases ones started by him. So as you will hopefully naturally conclude that the IP editor is Ryan kirkpatrick, that would tend to suggest he is not Jersay (unless he happens to have moved several thousand miles).

Although understandable, it would seem somewhat harsh to keep Ryan indefinitely blocked for block evasion given the initial block was in fact in error, but there is also the unresolved matter of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ryan kirkpatrick where significant concerns have been raised about Ryan's editing. Please let me know what should be done about this, as then I know what action to take with future IP sockpuppets of Ryan. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 09:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Would you object to this going to WP:AN for wider discussion? It will not be for criticism of your good faith block, more what can be done about Ryan based on the request for comment. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 20:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Wow, I must really be off-kilter lately with sock blocks :( I suppose not. I thought I was right in that SPI (that Kirkpatrick came along right after Jersay's last sock AmerCana was blocked), that the timing behind that account was too coincidental. –MuZemike 20:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I think it as an assumption that most people would have made, and it may end up as a case of the right block for the wrong reason. I will open up a discussion shortly. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 20:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Opened at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#The current block on User:Ryan_kirkpatrick. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 20:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred Fields

Hiya. I'm not in the habit of complaining about closures, but I was a bit surprised to see this one as no consensus. In terms of numbers it was pretty close but I thought the keep arguments were pretty weak. Looking at the keeps in turn:

  1. Having illustrations published does not make someone notable, unless this has resulted in them receiving coverage in RS. The "third party material" was actually from the person's publisher.
  2. Argues that because someone added a source (which has already been shown not to be independent) there are likely to be others. Being confident that sources are available is just an opinion - we actually need to see that the sources exist, especially for a BLP.
  3. A reasonable claim of notability is fine to avoid speedy deletion but at AfD we need to see evidence of it. Likely search term - who for? if he is not notable people are unlikely to search for him. Sourcing is sufficiently reliable - the accuracy of the information is not necessarily disputed, but sources have to be independent to show notability. All BLPs are potentially contentious.
  4. Just a vote, with no basis in policy.

In comparison, the delete votes were grounded in policy, but I would say that since I voted delete! Anyway, I'd be grateful if you could have another look and let me know what you think. Quantpole (talk) 15:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I think what I looked at in that AFD was the claims of the person meeting WP:ARTIST versus not having sufficient sourcing to meet it. I will note, however, that "just a vote" goes both ways, and there was at least one "keep" and one "delete" on each side I could have disregarded on that basis. That being said, I'll send it to DRV myself as I do think you've brought up some valid points that I may have overlooked. –MuZemike 20:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Well I thought the one saying 'per quantpole' was entirely reasonable ;-) Anyway, thanks for your reply. Quantpole (talk) 22:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

WGN, etc.

I know from recollection that most if not all of the info that guy is adding to WGN-TV is correct. However, he needs sourcing, and is obviously trying to "own" the article, which isn't permitted. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. This has been mentioned at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Lists of non-notable "past employees" of television stations? as well as at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TVFAN24/Archive, in which several socks favoring addition of said info have been confirmed and blocked. –MuZemike 20:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
FYI, 98.223.95.42 has been blocked for quite a while for block evasion. –MuZemike 20:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I saw. And I still say he would have a better case if he provided sourcing. However, there is a risk that you would end up listing everyone who was ever on the air at the station - and probably leave some out. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Problem is that it doesn't look like he's interested in discussing sources; he just wants to leave said unsourced material in there to the point of excessive edit warring and socking over it, much of the material involving living people. You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink. –MuZemike 20:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Someone's presence at a radio station or not hardly constitutes a BLP violation. But you're right, he seems not really interested in doing things the right way. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

He rubbed out his previous unblock requests just before making his final one and triggering semi-protection of the page for the duration. Is it worth trying to restore the others back, or does it really matter? Also, I notice he used the old sock ploy of claiming someone else was doing it. Is there a barnstar for dredging up lame excuses? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

(98.223.95.42) Can you please lift my block, one of my kids got a hold of this computer and started making edits w/o my knowledge. I am the owner of this computer and IP address. I have put a lock on this computer and assure you that it won't happen ever again as I only look at Wikipedia for information.
(TVFAN24) Can you please lift my block, one of my kids got a hold of this computer and started making edits w/o my knowledge. I am the owner of this computer and IP address. I have put a lock on this computer and assure you that it won't happen ever again as I only look at Wikipedia for information.
(TVFAN24) The reason why I posted this here is b/c another administrator told me in order to have my IP address block lifted, I have to request for it on the account which is blocked which is this one that my son created. I asked my son for this account's password.
(N2487) My accouunt has been compromised and I knew nothing about this situation. Can you please unblock my account and then I will take appropriate action regarding changing my password.
Why are all three complaining about compromised accounts at the same time, may I ask? Perhaps the "son" was smart enough to create at least two separate accounts and engage in blatant edit warring on Chicago-related TV station articles? Even if this was all true, the fact remains that there is plenty of abuse from that IP, hence blocking is absolutely necessary to snuff it. –MuZemike 03:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Doesn't this remind you of another similar "socker mom" a while back? –MuZemike 03:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, and others in the past, including one from several years ago called "SoxRock", which should have been a dead giveaway except he was ostensibly a White Sox fan or something. That one was a serious looney. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Weird sock accounts

I saw some of those, but for some reason, the system is telling me that some of these accounts don't exist when I try and block them. Don't know if the glitch is on this end or over at WP. What is it with weirdos like this? Add to that a Bambifan101 sock (which I suspect is from those jackasses at ED) and whee, the fun I'm having here at work during a bit of downtime. I'll log on at home and clobber those "template" accounts. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The servers seem to be lagged pretty badly right now; Special:RecentChanges is lagged by 2 hours, and some newly registered accounts are showing up as nonexistent in popups. Soap 00:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Karunyan

Correct! - Alison 04:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I know. I got him pegged :) –MuZemike 04:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jamiemichelle

We need more people to comment on this case. Your help would greatly be appreciated. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 15:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Funny

On some level, I do find this somewhat funny as the idiot who was accusing me edit-warring and promoting Indian nationalism engages in sockpuppetry, edit-warring, and fails to adhere to WP:NPOV. Atleast in his SPI case against me, he could have gotten the CONTINENT right (for one, I don't live in Uttar Pradesh, India). I suspect however that this was just an attempt to defame me or shut me up because I contested his ridiculous edits. Suffice it to say, I am happy to put this chapter behind me. Vedant (talk) 18:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Sovietia is getting restless

Hi MuZemike. In case you haven't already seen it, the IP socks of Sovietia (talk · contribs) are disgruntled: [21] and [22]. Care to negotiate? Face-grin.svg Favonian (talk) 12:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Sovietia reblocked 2 weeks as well as 70.22.128.0/19. I feel like we're playing Deal or No Deal or something... –MuZemike 16:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Prestige Management

Hi,

I have just nominated via PROD Prestige Management (created in Nov 2006) only to be warned about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prestige Management dateing back to 2004 so a two part question :

a) should it be speedy G4; and if not
b) what should I do ?


Codf1977 (talk) 16:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a significant improvement (albeit still unsourced and likely still not notable) from the version deleted per the 2004 VFD, and since this was about 6 years ago, I wouldn't delete per G4. I would just send it to a 2nd AFD just so you don't get some wikilawyer say "well, it was already deleted before" stuff. –MuZemike 16:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks - Will do. Codf1977 (talk) 16:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Advice

thanks for the advice. i am new to wikipedia and was promptly edit attacked by others without any explanation or warning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatimamadar (talkcontribs) 21:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

What you need to do is to discuss civilly with Everard Proudfoot instead persistently reverting, as the latter is considered disruptive. We also have the dispute resolution process in which you can ask for third opinions and all sorts of other good stuff. –MuZemike 21:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Npov banner on Yugoslav destroyer Split

Hi. I'm scanning through ship articles with NPOV tags. Looking at the current article and your diff from 2008, I see nothing particularly controversial. As there's nothing on the article's talk page, I'm stumped. Do you see any remaining NPOV problems on the page? Thanks. HausTalk 06:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I saw that lead as raising a big red flag as far as NPOV is concerned, which was why I added the NPOV tag there. I'd be perfectly happy with its removal if that lead is changed to a more neutral sentence such as:

Split was a destroyer built for the Yugoslav Navy in 1938. She was built by Yarrow Shipbuilders and was named after the city of the same name. She was aquired in 1950 and was commissioned in July 1958 and was decommissioned in 1980.

Of course, that is just a suggestion by me, but I think that is a good start there and sums up the article for the most part with what there is right now. –MuZemike 07:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Done and done. Thanks for the quick response. HausTalk 07:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

List of Protestant missionaries killed during the Boxer Rebellion

Hi. This qualified for deletion as a stand alone but in the discussion I made a strong case that a short list of agencies involved with casualty figures should be incorporated into a parent article such as China Martyrs of 1900. but- since this was deleted without any effort expended to amend the article - we lost the simple list for the count. Can you please put a restored copy into my talk page or something? It would save the time of having to look all of this up again in an out-of-print book. Thanks.Brian0324 (talk) 13:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done User:Brian0324/List of Protestant missionaries killed during the Boxer Rebellion. –MuZemike 14:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks - sorry - can you copy the China Inland Mission list for me as well?Brian0324 (talk) 17:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
And also Yes check.svg Done User:Brian0324/List of China Inland Mission missionaries killed during the Boxer Rebellion. –MuZemike 19:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks again.Brian0324 (talk) 20:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Your Quote

I seen your quote about edit wars being two users kicking each other in the shins. It reminded me of this (don't worry, the video is from ABC News. - NeutralHomerTalk • 02:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Though I was surprised when I saw this article: Cotswold Olimpick Games, in which one of the events is ... you guessed it, shin-kicking. –MuZemike 02:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
The two are probably related. The video comes from England, by way of ABC News, so it is probably part of those "games". The Brits has shin-kicking, we have the Redneck Olympics. All just plain weird and totally hysterical at the same time :) - NeutralHomerTalk • 02:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Quintana (2nd nomination)

What a can-o-worms. Might I ask for an expansion and opinion toward the multiple arguments toward guideline and policy... and that you address User:S Marshall's point-by-point refutation of the nominator's reasons for nomination, and the number of !votes that simply echoed the nominator even after his points were proven invalid? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Or, you could put it up for review. I'm sure the closing action will be endorsed. ----moreno oso (talk) 01:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
DRV? Heck no. I have full faith and trust in MuZemike. I simply wished expansion on his rationale. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
The other !votes had slightly different deletion rationales than that of the nom, but they all converged to one specific point. Multiple editors have also refuted the refutation, which you could argue was also valid. I'd also argue that many (not all) of the arguments for deletion were more grounded in policy and guidelines than the reasons for retention (in which I also found a few faults in those arguments). That being said, one side was not going to be happy regardless of how I closed it. –MuZemike 01:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I do not envy you your decision... and have a sneaking suspician that a better version may return in the future, a version that will then have to be judged on its own. This guy just cannot keep himself out of the press. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
If you want a userfication or incubation, you know where to find me, assuming you're right :) –MuZemike 02:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
(chuckle) As I offered in the AFD, I do not like this guy and would never vote for him. Writng about him? I'll mull that one over. And thank you for the clarification. Much appreciated. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I share Schmidt's concerns about the deletion of Brian Quintana. Rather than restore I am happy to submit a new page though frankly I expect it to be removed as a re-post no matter how different. Can you provide a copy of this more balanced page so I may work on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brian_Quintana&oldid=315643392 Since this version the same group of editors (Hairhorn, Cameron Scott, Ttonyb1, Tabercil, Nightscream, Jayron32, Malo, and Geniac) have removed the substance little by little, before moving for deletion. I find their actions dismissive, racists, classist and in total violation of Wikipedia's policies. For example, "Oprah Winfrey's A Better Chance recruited him at age fifteen to attend the prestigious Hotchkiss School in Lakeville, Connecticut" was changed to "an organization that helps underprivileged youths." The program provides scholarships to gifted youth not underprivileged. References to his 2009 Congressional exploratory committee, his notable supporter, and work as a VIP facilitator were also removed. The deleted version is intentionally demeaning. I was more involved in years past, but every time I sought to improve the page with sourced material, I was blocked as a sockpuppet for Quintana or flagged for edit wars. My home and work computers were also blocked. I had planned to chime in on deletion debate, but was waiting for the California Secretary of State to certify the 2010 election results next Friday, July 16, 2010. I figure it will be harder to argue with 400,000 voters (more votes than the Governor of Nevada, New Mexico and most smaller States). Most experts deemed his run a success:

Sacramento Bee - "But the news of the day is that Hollywood producer Brian Quintana, who didn't get any publicity, garnered nearly three times as many votes as Kaus." http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2010/06/kaus-gets-just.html

KQED Public Media - "The surprise runner-up: Hollywood producer Brian Quintana, who snatched almost 15% of the vote." http://blogs.kqed.org/capitalnotes/2010/06/09/last-call-for-primary-2010/

San Gabriel Valley Tribune - "Quintana's showing was surprising. Kaus got some press. Quintana came out of nowhere," said Jack Pitney, a political science professor at Claremont McKenna College. "Quintana ran a good e-mail campaign," according to Republican political consultant Matt Klink, of Cerrell Associates. http://www.sgvtribune.com/news/ci_15282486

I see no one bashing on the third place candidate Chuck DeVore: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_devore —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cleverclaus (talkcontribs) 00:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you userfy it for me to a workspace at User:Cleverclaus/workspace/Brian Quintanna.--Cleverclaus (talk) 02:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done User:Cleverclaus/workspace/Brian QuintanaMuZemike 03:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

SPI Clerking

Ahoy there. Is it a shortage of Clerks that has been slowing SPI down recently? Or is it checkusers? I doubt I would ever get to be a checkuser but I could volunteer for clerkage if that is what is required. S.G.(GH) ping! 11:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Any thoughts? S.G.(GH) ping! 17:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for not getting back earlier, as I've been busy IRL the past 36 hours. Anyways, what SPI needs more are admins willing to make the tough calls and determine whether or not sock puppetry is going on; not many people realize, but the majority of SPI cases do not require CheckUser attention, and it is up to admins to make that determination. I made a similar comment a couple of days ago here regarding that.
As far as the need for more CheckUsers are concerned, I'm personally on the fence as to whether or not we need more. ArbCom says there is an increased need for them, but the community disagrees, as evident in this previous CUOS election results. Some of the users with CheckUser rights are pretty much retired, and some of the others who are arbitrators choose not to use them either for personal reasons or for an otherwise lack of knowledge about networking/user agents/etc and the CU tool itself (i.e. they leave the checkusering in ArbCom cases to those arbitrators more experienced with the tool like Coren, Risker, or Rlevse, to name a couple). –MuZemike 18:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the quick work in blocking the User:TVFAN24 sock. I thought the behavioral evidence was pretty strong, and I almost blocked the account per the duck test, but it was good to get a second opinion. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 21:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I figured this was him after seeing several of his socks in the past, too. –MuZemike 21:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Aquabatics

Hi there Please can you help me userfy the page that you have put under speedy delete. Aquabatics is a name many do not understand and we often have to explain who we are and what we do. It would be much simpler if the definition was out there. I will take your advice on how best to get it reinstated. 09:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)Katyaqua (talk)

Yes check.svg Done See User:Katyaqua/Aquabatics. Please keep in mind that you do have a conflict of interest, which may get in the way as far as maintaining a neutral point of view is concerned. –MuZemike 14:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Jmbernard86

Need an admin's opinion on something. The above named user edited en masse after not editing since August 2009. The user created several very poor redirects, an article for a television company exec, blanked and redirected several pages and then...gone. All the edits center around the West Virginia television station group West Virginia Media Holdings. I am not sure if the user is an employee or not, but the edits strike me as part vandalism and part COI. What do you make of it? - NeutralhomerTalk • 03:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Just lighting this up. - NeutralhomerTalk • 18:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't know about vandalism, but it wouldn't be unreasonable to suspect COI. –MuZemike 19:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
And this ANI thread seems to confirm my thoughts, and I didn't even look there until just now. I'm good. –MuZemike 19:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
OK, just wanted to get an admin's opinion and take on things. Thanks Dude. Hope all is well in your neck of the woods. - NeutralhomerTalk • 01:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:DUCK

Based on your comment here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Melonbarmonster2#Clerk.2C_CheckUser.2C_and.2For_patrolling_admin_comments would you be willing to block based on duck? Melonbarmonster is clearly being disruptive (4RR on July 5th which got the page locked, but a report on him wasn't filed in time) and he seemingly maintains they are separate individuals thus trying to give his position and disruption more weight. A clear violation of WP:SOCK.--Crossmr (talk) 23:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The thing is that the edit warring (as well as editing by that IP) has stopped now for almost a week. It also looks like he has seemed to discuss on the talk page, which is what we want. Blocking would seem a bit punitive here, not to mention the full-protection on Korean cuisine is going to end in about 24 hours or so. Let's wait and see what happens before more drama is caused by blocking; besides, he's at ANI right now. –MuZemike 00:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
The page has been locked for a week, of course the edit warring has stopped. He only went to discuss on the talk page after getting his opponent blocked on a lie filled AN/I posting. Socking isn't a punitive block. It's to prevent further disruption and if you're sure enough that's him and he's still denying it, that's on-going disruption because he's trying to give more weight to his stance than is valid. His post disappeared from AN/I because after being called on the edit warring he shut up and no one else responded.--Crossmr (talk) 00:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion on David c kernell

Hello, a while back I saw an editor create David c kernell who is the guy who hacked Palin's email account. It was redirected to an article on that subject. Today, another editor wrote a terrible (IMHO) about Kernell and eliminated the redirect. Kernell is not IMO WP:N because his deed was 1BLPE. What do you think? ----moreno oso (talk) 17:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

It looks like that redirect plus the David Kernell redirect were both undone. IMO they should both be redirected back to the Sarah Palin email hack article. –MuZemike 00:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

As a support to the "Sarah Palin email hack" several articles entitled with different versions of David Kernell's name were created and redirected to that article. Additionally an article with Mike Kernell name, his father, was as similarly created and redirected. This is in direct violation of Wiki policy. It essentially brands David Kernell with a one time incident. I attempted to delete these redirects sighting these concerns previously, only to have the changes reversed. The additional information included on the present David Kernell article will develop various constitutional issues that surround the incident, subsequent trial and up coming appeals. Lack of proper support, has prevented this in the past as the main stream media frequently inadequately reports testimony. Court documents will be available next week along with various legal opinions to help fill out this article. Currently, when one Googles David Kernell, the only article to appear is the "Sarah Palin email hack" which slanted approach barks of political enhancement. If you choose to delete the article you must delete all articles related to the David Kernell name, such as David C Kernell, david kernell and others. And prevent any future redirects of his name to the sarah palin email hack article. I suppose an new article entitled the "Constitutional Challenges of the David Kernell Prosecution" may be a better title for the present article. Constitutionguard (talk)

Formal SPI or...?

Sorry to bug you again but it appears the dubious sockmaster has returned with (yet again...) another sockpuppet. He appears to have gained some intelligence though as this time after creating the sock, the moron didn't make any userspace related edits. He just went straight to accusing me of supporting Indian nationalism. Vedant (talk) 01:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, how come you didn't reply here regarding my suspicions about a new sock account? Thanks, Vedant (talk) 04:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
It didn't become bloody obvious until Fangornan tried to get rid of his own SPI case here. –MuZemike 06:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Sock problem

Hi. There's an issue with new users copying text from websites at McDonnell Douglas DC-10 and also at Orbis International. I used twinkle to add a sock report but got an error during the process. It added the report page and notified the users, but didn't add the report to the main list at WP:SPI. The stand-alone report is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MD-10 Project. I'm unsure about how to complete listing and finish whatever twinkle stumbled on. Thanks. Dawnseeker2000 21:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Added to queue by inserting {{SPI|casename}}. Jarkeld (talk) 22:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
OK great. Didn't know which queue to use. Thank you. Dawnseeker2000 22:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Another TVFAN24 Sock?

Deconstructhis brought this user to my attention. With the edits already to a couple Chicago stations and them being a new editor/account, my sock-o-meter is going off on this one. What do you think? - NeutralhomerTalk • 22:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

(Copied and pasted from my own talk page for expediency) "They may want to have a look at these kinds of edits[23] where it appears that as the first account begins to accumulate user warnings and drawing attention to itself and such, they appear to begin to 'tag team' by bringing in a new account. With no way of checking it's difficult to be definitive, but given previous patterns; I'd suggest it's worth a look." cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 23:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Sz83 (talk · contribs)  Confirmed by a CU as TVFAN24 and blocked, Radiodj1520  Unrelated. –MuZemike 00:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks MuZemike. :) - NeutralhomerTalk • 00:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your attention regarding this. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 01:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Got another on my SockDar (patent pending)...User:Sir H Izme. The only edits have been to the discussion on WP:TVS started by Deconstructhis, but the user seems very clear on the language of Wikipedia, like they have been here before. Could be nothing, just strikes me as odd that their first edit is that discussion out of 3.4 million pages. - NeutralhomerTalk • 18:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Let's AGF for now. I think I got TVFAN24's MO down (i.e. limited to Chicago TV station articles); this seems to be outside that. –MuZemike 18:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Okie Dokie...just wanted to bring it to your attention in case the user "branches out". - NeutralhomerTalk • 18:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Vandal alert.

Sorry to disturb you, but remember the Indonesian misinformation vandal. He seems to be popping up all over again. Right now, he is using114.57.11.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · edit filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Same MO. WP:AIV is currently backlogged, BTW. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 07:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours for block evasion. –MuZemike 07:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. BTW, I don't know if you do rangeblocks, but the guy has been using addresses from the 114.57.230.0/23 and 114.57.0.0/19 ranges lately (114.57.0.0/16 is way too broad, BTW). Just giving a suggestion. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 07:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I've blocked the entire /16 range for 3 days, if that helps any. Nobody else has been on that range for a bit. –MuZemike 08:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

your advice please

You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Fand training camp (3rd nomination) as no consensus.

I'd like to ask your advice about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Fand training camp (4th nomination). Were you aware that less than an hour after you left your concluding statement the wiki-id User:Iqinn renominated the article for deletion? The wiki-id User:Iqinn has kept the article Al Fand training camp at {{afd}}, continuously, for almost eight weeks.

I am on record, that the articles on camps that are only known from the Guantanamo allegation memos, and had a relatively low number of attendees identified, should be merged into a larger article.

Correct me if I am mistaken, if this article were not nominated for deletion, taking steps to merge and redirect it to a more broad, more referenced article would be well with the options open following a "no consensus" conclusion?

Correct me if I am mistaken, while contributors are allowed to renominate articles for additional {{afd}}, aren't they supposed to only do so if they thought that there was some important point missed during the earlier {{afd}}, or if enough times (several months at least) had passed, so they could reasonably suggest the consensus had changed?

Correct me if I am mistaken, but if the wiki-id User:Iqinn thought you had made a mistake in your closure, shouldn't they have contacted you, to request a fuller explanation? Sometimes administrators reverse their closures when a good faith contributor makes good points about their closures. Sometimes administrators address the concerns good faith contributors had about a closure, and convince them it was a good closure. Correct me if I am mistaken, if the wiki-id User:Iqinn continued to have concerns over your closure, after asking for a fuller explanation, you would probably have told them they had the option of initiating a review at {{drv}}?

As I see it, my options include:

  1. merging and redirecting the article, even though it has been nominated for deletion, because it is a counter-policy nomination, and {{afd}} shouldn't be used to disrupt the normal activities of the wikipedia.
  2. requesting help over their disruptive and counter-policy actions.
  3. initiating a DRV prior to the fourth {{afd}}'s closure.

FWIW, I feel the portion of this comment at User talk:Jimbo Wales "but continues pushing against policy makes a deletion impossible..." improperly implies bad faith on my part.

FWIW the wiki-id User:Iqinn did not inform me of the {{afd}}.

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 18:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Maggot 10

Thanks for the prompt response. I've had much more evident WP:DUCK cases declined based on behavioral evidence before, so I just file them at WP:SPI now everytime. I'll run 'em by you first next time if you don't mind. I do find filing these reports something of a hassle.--Atlan (talk) 23:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Martinakohl sock

An additional account was just registered and made the same edit (here). If you could save me the trouble of making another SPI case page that would be appreciated. Also, could that article be semi-protected? nableezy - 02:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, nableezy - 03:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:BanditKingsOfAncientChinaNESBoxart.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:BanditKingsOfAncientChinaNESBoxart.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted the image straight away, as I see a better boxart was uploaded. Thanks, –MuZemike 19:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought I should let you know...

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Fand training camp (4th nomination) is being reviewed at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_July_15#Al_Fand_training_camp.

Your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Fand training camp (3rd nomination) has been commented upon there. I thought I should let you know....

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 16:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Shefqet Bej Vërlaci

Hi there! Could you please do me a favour and move Shefqet Bej Vërlaci to Shefqet Vërlaci. It's not moving now. There is an agreement and consensus on this at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albania#Article_names_with_no_titles. Thanks much! --Sulmues (talk) 18:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Could you please do the same with Fejzi Bej Alizoti? That's not moving either. --Sulmues (talk) 20:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks again, always loved going to Wisconsin and sipping the wonderful beer there, :-). --Sulmues (talk) 20:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Your assistance please

Greetings!

You recently blocked 64.255.164.0/25 three weeks ago, for disruptive behavior at WP:ANI. I wasn't aware of their comments, at the time they were made.

The IP represented themselves as defending me against Jimbo Wales. But I believe that the real intent of the comments was to use mockery to attack me, and their mention of Jimbo was merely a ploy to attract more attention to their mockery of my position. I probably don't need to say I did not regard Jimbo Wales comments on the {{afd}} on Houston McCoy as abusive.

I write on controversial topics. This routinely triggers the attention of bad-faith challengers. About a dozen of my most persistent bad-faith challengers have ended up being permanently banned from the wikipedia -- but not for their personal attacks against me, but for simlar bad-faith behavior, elsewhere.

I have a long term challenger who I suspect drafted these repeated bad-faith comments.

If I am not mistaken, you are authorized to perform checkusers and sockpuppet investigations. Can I ask you what would happen to a named contributor if an investigation showed they had used 64.255.164.0/25 to try to avoid the consequences of personal attacks?

Is my suspicions that I recognize the style sufficient to justifiy a sockpuppet investigation? If so, how would you recommend I proceed?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 03:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I will respond via email, if that is OK with you. –MuZemike 03:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

SSP?

User:People bios suggests in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dr._Kenneth_K._Kim that he/she and another user are voting in the same AFD using the same computer. That sounds suspicious. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Repeatedly saving the day

Hi MuZemike. I want to express my thanks for your help, on many occasions, with problem socks. I really appreciate your prompt and diligent effort and hard work. I am personally very reassured to know that admins like you are around. Take care and thanks again. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 15:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Clerking at SPI

I'm wondering how I'd go about volunteering to assist as a clerk at SPI. Yworo (talk) 13:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You can leave a note at Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerks. Basically, we accept clerks who are in good standing and are very experienced with Wikipedia and how the community processes work. They must also be able to know and understand the sock puppetry, CheckUser, and Wikimedia Foundation privacy policies. You may wish to read WP:SPI/CLERK and see what clerks normally do. –MuZemike 16:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I will (re)read the material you suggest and follow up with a note at the Clerks page. Yworo (talk) 16:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Email

You have it. - NeutralhomerTalk • 07:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Jon Scheyer GA

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, thanks

Symbol support vote.svg This user helped promote the article Jon Scheyer to good article status.

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. I did see some issues that needed to be addressed, and I did my best to take care of it as the GA reviewer because I knew the article was basically there (just needed a bit more copyedit and cleanup).
It might also help for you to know that I will be shortly be moving to Illinois, and I will probably be a bit closer to related articles; however, I will remain with video games as my main focus here. –MuZemike 08:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Jrfoldes

User:Jrfoldes seems to be getting ready to start his reverting again on the various You Can't Do That on Television articles.[24] I have left him a sternly worded warning,[25] but as he claimed in his unblocked that I was "harassing" him by not letting him do what he wants, I thought it might be helpful if someone else also tried having a word with him. He seems to be capable of good editing when he stays away from those articles, but he also does not seek to be capable of keeping himself away.-- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 22:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

He is now back at ANI for going on a revert round again[26] -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 03:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Re:User:RichSatan

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

--Cailil talk 23:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to let you know I've opened an ANI thread about these IPs here - I mentioned your post to my page in - just in case you have anything to add--Cailil talk 03:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Rolando 2 logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Rolando 2 logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

User:YouAndMeBabyAintNothingButCamels

If this editor protests about the Sockpuppet block, I think it should be given pretty high consideration. While User:PtAuAg certainly passed my Duck test [I was the original person to file the report], the "Camel" guy doesn't share any discernible behavioral pattern, IMO. Thanks for any consideration. BigK HeX (talk) 22:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Treasurey of New England Short Stories

Hello, I was wondering, could you undelete the page I created for "Treasury of New England Short Stories" and help me bring it up to standards? I feel that it need be included in Wikipedia because the collection itself is unique and is virtually unknown online. If you still disagree, would you at least send me the page in an email so I can print it off for my own use? I foolishly did not think to save a copy of the typed words and so would have to retype for use in my classroom. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jan293 (talkcontribs) 00:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I have created for you a userspace draft at User:Jan293/A Treasury of New England Short Stories. –MuZemike 00:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Razack Zamarul

CU doesn't reveal anything about the above, but [27] is interesting. If you or another clerk wants to look into it, there is probably enough there for a DUCK block. KnightLago (talk) 02:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I can probably do that, but I won't get to it right this second. For me, it's wasn't 100% spot-on as far behavioral evidence is concerned, but someone surely could have a different opinion on the matter. –MuZemike 02:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
OK. I left a note there. KnightLago (talk) 02:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smelly socks (2nd nomination)

Could you speedy close the above AfD? Apparently this was nom'd previously 5 days ago and I just nom'd it again about an hour ago...my goof. Just need an admin closure. - NeutralhomerTalk • 23:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Sir. Much appreciated. - NeutralhomerTalk • 00:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

A7

My experience is that any sort of web "show" or YouTube channel is A7-able, like Elevator filming (hobby)‎. I worry about giving this thing seven days. I am watching this page, so please reply here.Timneu22 · talk 19:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

To me, it seems more like a general hobby, not necessarily limited to the Internet. That was why I felt it didn't necessarily fall under A7. –MuZemike 19:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I'd have to disagree. It's a YouTube thing only, hence the list of "notable YouTube users". — Timneu22 · talk 19:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Stealth20k

He's continuing to add the content to Dragon Quest VI, or if not him, an IP address with a similar editing history is. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 12:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

.hack (video game series)

Hi, I wonder if you could spare time to take a look at this article, which is somewhat stalled at FAC. A few comments would be helpful, to get discussion going again. Brianboulton (talk) 14:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Restore file

Hi. Would it be possible to restore File:UnionManilaFC.png to replace a similar of lower quality. I was the creator and I also requested for it's deletion. I thought there was a problem with the file itself when I used it to edit Union F.C. when another user reverted my "good faith" edits even though I didn't vandalize or do anything wrong in my edits. So I went ahead and requested for its deletion. Thanks. Banana Fingers (talk) 15:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done I almost forgot about your request. –MuZemike 16:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Amoruso

Opened a new about him: [28] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Alexa traffic“ gelöscht ‎ (A2: Article in a foreign language that exists on another project: w:de:Alexa Internet)

hello, i have only one short qestion about this part, can i ad my post on the artikel what is in german? ( http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexa_Internet)

this i think is also ok for me then when i can not post my artikel Olaf1969 (talk) 16:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you may, assuming you are allowed to edit on the German Wikipedia :) Keep in mind that this is the English Wikipedia, so we only allow articles written in English. It is also redundant to allow articles in other languages (like German) in which the Wikipedia in that language already has an article on that topic. –MuZemike 16:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Deleted Page Re: Blake Farenthold

Earlier today, I received a Google Alert that someone had created a page about me, Blake Farenthold and you deleted it citing notability (A7). While I am uncomfortable arguing my own importance or significance, I _am_ the Republican nominee for United States Congress (see Farenthold prevails in Republican runoff for U.S. House District 27 nomination). This nomination should qualify me for a page under the Politicians category (Category:Politicians) as someone "associated with a party that has recently won elections, or is widely regarded as about to, as a candidate".


Obviously, as a person seeking public office, I would like to see an accurate Wikipeda page with my background and qualifications posted, but out of respect for established rules and objectivity considerations, I have not done one myself.


At the very least, I'd be interested in what the author was saying about me.


R. Blake Farenthold

Candidate, United States Congress

27th District of Texas

www.blake.com

Dear Sir,
I appreciate your concern about the article about you being deleted, and I will try to help out if I am able to.
On Wikipedia, we do have certain standards as to which certain people get an article; our notability guidelines for politicians normally outline which politicians get their own articles on Wikipedia. Knowing that literally anybody can apply to run for office, the article about you that I deleted had absolutely nothing in which would have even constituted an encyclopedia article let alone about someone whom we do not know anything about (I apologize in advance if I came across as terse at all).
Also, keep in mind that Wikipedia is not for promotional purposes, even though many do realize that Wikipedia is the top result on most searches; we are adamant on that. That is, we go by what others view about subjects, as opposed to the other way around, through the way of having all information here verified through reliable sources independent of the subject. Such sources go a long way to establishing notability of politicians, which I have mentioned in the previous paragraph. If we can get such sources, then that would be a step forward into developing a proper notable and verifiable article.
Finally, you may also wish to keep in mind that you or anyone whom you are working with will have a conflict of interest as far as developing an article about you is concerned. It is normally discouraged for those to develop or edit articles in which they have a conflict of interest as their edits may go against Wikipedia's strong policy of neutrality; we strive to maintain an encyclopedia that is unbiased and seems to be against any specific points of view as possible. This is easier said than done, as there are numerous subjects even right now which are constantly disputed because of perceived lack of neutrality.
I hope that helps out for you. If you have any other questions or queries, you may respond here, or you can also email me at muzemike@gmail.com.
Regards, –MuZemike 08:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Question

Could you check this edit and see if the links I put down at reliable and are FA quality, please? Thanks. - NeutralhomerTalk • 08:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly at this moment, but there shouldn't be "FA quality" sources with the exception of what is listed at 1(c) (which is still a bit vague IMO). If they're WP:RS, then you know you're in good shape. If you know a partially-reliable source can be replaced with a better one, then go ahead and do so – verifiability is the key. –MuZemike 08:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
All of these are verifible and correct, just the source I had prior, which was actually from the State of Virginia, kept "timing out" after a couple weeks and it had to be reset. Kind of annoying and not really good. So I found those two. One from a voter's group that just takes your address (I put in the city hall's address, not mine) and the other from Congress.com, a website operated by the makers of the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call. I just want to make sure they are RS. I didn't know if there was such a thing as a "FA quality" link or not. This is my first FAC, so I am a total noob. - NeutralhomerTalk • 08:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
In case you are wondering, the FAC in question is this one: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Stephens City, Virginia/archive1‎. - NeutralhomerTalk • 08:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Just lighting this up again after the vandalism edit that covered it up. - NeutralhomerTalk • 08:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I see it. You seem to be doing OK so far, BTW. –MuZemike 09:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Cool, thanks :) Thanks for answering my question too. :) Take Care Dude...NeutralhomerTalk • 09:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I mean, I'll take a look when I can; I know I have to look at another FAC when I get the chance, but I don't think I will for quite a while, sadly. –MuZemike 09:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I didn't say you had to look, I was just referencing the FAC I was talking about. If you want to check out the FAC, I would be glad to have another pair of eyes, but don't think you have to just cause I referenced it. - NeutralhomerTalk • 09:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Your Break

Enjoy your break, see ya on the other side of it. We will keep the Wiki chair warm for ya until you get back. :) Good luck with the move. :) - NeutralhomerTalk • 02:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

RFA question

Hello, I saw in my watchlist that you had deleted an RFA of a user who has been blocked, User:Premier Shawn. That user has also participated in another RFA. I didn't want to revert it without checking if that is the right thing to do. Could you please advise? Thanks. LovesMacs (talk) 03:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

A bureaucrat will probably discount that !vote. –MuZemike 03:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request of Premier Shawn

Hello MuZemike. Premier Shawn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit 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, - Vianello (Talk) 04:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Aaactually, don't rush yourself into looking at this. Another user helpfully pointed out something I'd missed. - Vianello (Talk) 02:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/78.138.167.192/Archive

I think we may have the same user here. Perhaps a checkuser is warranted? Enigmamsg 01:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of I Write Like

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of I Write Like 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! MBelgrano (talk) 17:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

YouAndMeBabyAintNothingButCamels

MuZemike – During this review you blocked YouAndMeBabyAintNothingButCamels (talk · contribs) based on behavior. As the user has had an unblock request up for a good period of time, I've tried to look into this. The CU returned “possible/unclear” in relation to the main abusive sockpuppeter, and I can’t seem to find anything in common with any of the other socks. I can see that you’re offline, but if you happen to be lurking about, it would be helpful to get some more input here. I’ll send a poke to a few of the other people involved as well. Kuru (talk) 20:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind; his further edits have not helped. Maybe take a look when you get back, but I've declined it for now. Kuru (talk) 15:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 July newsletter

Trophy.png

We are half-way through our penultimate round, and nothing is yet certain. Pool A, currently led by Hungary Sasata (submissions) has ended up the more competitive, with three contestants (Hungary Sasata (submissions), Colorado Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) and New Orleans TonyTheTiger (submissions)) scoring over 500 points already. Pool B is led by New South Wales Casliber (submissions), who has also scored well over 500. The top two from each pool, as well as the next four highest scorers regardless of pool, will make it through to our final eight. As ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Planning has begun for the 2011 WikiCup, with open discussions concerning scoring and flags for next year's competition. Contributions to those discussions would be appreciated, especially concerning the flags, as next year's signups cannot begin until the flag issue has been resolved. Signups will hopefully open at some point in this round, with discussion about possible changing in the scoring/process opening some time afterwards.

Earlier this round, we said goodbye to Pennsylvania Hunter Kahn (submissions), who has bowed out to spend more time on the book he is authoring with his wife. We wish him all the best. In other news, the start of this round also saw some WikiCup awards sent out by Finland Suomi Finland 2009 (submissions). We appreciate his enthusiasm, and contestants are of course welcome to award each other prizes as they see fit, but rest assured that we will be sending out "official" awards at the end of the competition. If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 22:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Rise2SaturnBoxart.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Rise2SaturnBoxart.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

  • I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
  • If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
  • If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.


Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Welcome Back

See you are all settled in enough to update Wikipedia. Hope you are all unpacked and moved into your new place and you have cable and internet a-workin'. :) - NeutralhomerTalk • 06:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Wiki-Conference NYC (2nd annual)

Our 2nd annual Wiki-Conference NYC has been confirmed for the weekend of August 28-29 at New York University.

There's still plenty of time to join a panel, or to propose a lightning talk or an open space session. Register for the Wiki-Conference here. And sign up here for on-wiki notification. All are invited!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

SPI

This ZjarriRrethues fellow reminds me very much of Sarandioti. SPI is here [29]. Cheers, Athenean (talk) 23:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Flyingfinn19

Can you take a look at the unblock request please? Based on the CU evidence not being 100%, I might suggest an unblock. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 08:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

While I see 3l1m1n8r's and Azza1995's edits to be clearly unconstructive and hence worthy of their VOA blocks, I do agree that I do not see the same in Flyingfinn19's edits. However, I am concerned with Azza1995's edit and Flyingfinn19's edit, both of which reference to Uncyclopedia; unless they use different usernames over there, they do not have accounts there. I would also like to know why Flyingfinn19 created Azza1995's userpage. –MuZemike 15:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Quintana (2nd nomination)

Another admin overturned Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Quintana (2nd nomination) by restoring Brian Quintana in less than a month with no noticeable appreciation. Could you take a look at the situation? ----moreno oso (talk) 20:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 August 4#Brian Quintana. I am disappointed that someone went over my head to restore the article without any additional commentary, unlike a few who actually took the time and did so. –MuZemike 20:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I had a feeling it would be back sooner than later. What I don't get is that he's a nobody that is looking for fame and helped editted his article here. It amazes me that with so many good notable people without articles (like in the Recent deaths list) that editors would support someone like this. ----moreno oso (talk) 20:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, I don't have an opinion on the article itself as that is not supposed to be my job as a closing admin. Anyways, it's basically a contesting of the AFD decision as far as how I see it (kind of similar to someone contesting an article deleted per WP:PROD after the fact). –MuZemike 20:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Still, the admin, who looks like it has all of 7,000 edits, should have come to you first to explore the issue of undelete and then taken it to DRV. And, you're still taking the high-road. If this had been been me, I'd be moaning in my Wheaties. ----moreno oso (talk) 21:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Jimbo just called. Says your crystal ball is fixed and never had problems. Don't worry, I don't see your closing action being overturned. It does gall me that the other admin end-ran around the AfD though. When the DRV closes, I will see your advice on that matter. In the meanwhile, take five. Seriously, you're one of the better and most consistent admins around here. Don't let this get to you or the weak Keep comments. I'm glad that Milowent agreed with the closure. Lets see what MQS says, but I'd bet my bottom dollar he's in favor of keep. ----moreno oso (talk) 22:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The Paging Game article deleted?

An article that I created earlier today, The Paging Game, was just deleted by MuZemike as "Unambiguous copyright infringement". There was the start of a discussion about this on the Discussion page for the article, but that is now gone too. I don't agree that this page was "unambiguous copyright infringement" and presented my reasons as part of the discussion. I understand that the matter wasn't resolved, but I was surprised to see the article deleted without any further discussion or comment. I expected to have a little time to come to an agreement. Can I get an explanation for what happened here? Jeff Ogden (talk) 22:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

At the top of this web page it says that the page was (re) published by the University of Michigan Computing Center Newsletter, with it furthermore saying that it is attributed from an individual from the University of British Columbia. In either case, there is no claim that either have released said material into the public domain, and the material was not published before January 1, 1923. You would need to obtain permission from whomever was the original creator of this material to release it under the CC-BY-SA, and even then, Wikipedia is not a repository of free content (that is what Wikisource is for). I'm sorry, but I cannot consider restoring the article under these circumstances. If you still disagree, then I recommend you take this to deletion review. Regards, –MuZemike 00:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
What I'd like to understand is why the article was deleted so quickly without allowing the discussion that had started on the article's discussion page to continue and reach a decision/consensuses? That discussion had some information about the copyright owner (Project MAC at MIT) and the permission that MIT had granted. Jeff Ogden (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
OK, I've temporarily restored the article, but I have flagged it as a possible copyright violation and have reported it to Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2010 August 5. –MuZemike 01:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
You have 7 days to provide proof that the copyright holder has released the material in the PD or under the CC-BY-SA. Note that you cannot assume PD if there is a lack of copyright status. I still think the article will be deleted, as TransporterMan said, per WP:NOTREPOSITORY; as I said, Wikisource is the place to go for stuff like this. –MuZemike 01:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I say you are going to need to provide proof because what is said here is not enough. Content on Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons-Sharealike 3.0 Unported license. That page does not say that it releases the material for anyone to freely reuse or distribute, provided attribution and equal licensing is made. –MuZemike 01:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I've moved the discussion back to Talk:The Paging Game. Jeff Ogden (talk) 05:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

talks for NYC meetup Aug 2010

MuZemike: I saw on this page that you proposed a lightning talk about the Statipedia proposal. I'm the main author of the proposal. I submitted to NYC meetup as a possible talk topic, though I'm not sure it suits. Is your lightning talk proposal a response to my submission? Or were you thinking independently of having a discussion about that? I'd love to discuss it whatever your thoughts are. Econterms (talk) 00:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Rayman95

It looks like the SPI has exonerated this user. There is currently an open unblock request on the user's talk page - perhaps you could take a look? Cheers. TNXMan 18:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Do whatever you folks want to do. I don't think I'm the right person to unblock here, as I apparently have violated policy by blocking. –MuZemike 18:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Violated policy? I'm not sure I follow. TNXMan 19:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
[30]. –MuZemike 19:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I guess it could have been worse - you could have "been accused of a suck puppet"... whatever that means. :) I'll take care of the unblock request. TNXMan 19:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liquid Technologies

Hi,

You closed this AfD last month but you only deleted one of the two nominated articles ? was this an oversight or dilibrate ?

Thanks

Codf1977 (talk) 08:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

That was an oversight; the article is now deleted. That's why I don't like multiple-article nominations (though they're encouraged), as I tend to miss the other articles :) –MuZemike 13:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
No problem - I also missed it at the time. Codf1977 (talk) 14:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
the creator of both these articles has submitted at Articles for creation a new version of Liquid Technologies, can you have a look at it vs the one deleted to see if it is the same - either way I don't think it addressed the issue of Notability (or for that matter significance) but would like you to give your 2p worth first. Codf1977 (talk) 14:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
It still doesn't look like it passes for notability. I notice two book sources (improperly cited, but that's beyond the point), are included, but both are only passing mentions. Significant coverage is needed, which hasn't happened, yet. –MuZemike 15:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree and have put the submission on hold to give the editor a bit more time to demonstrate notability. Codf1977 (talk) 15:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit wars and possible socking re-commenced?

Hi MuZemike. I found your name on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HAl/Archive. I have tried pinging User:Hersfold but I see a note on their talk page that they are not very active at the moment, and have heard nothing back anyway. Problems seem to be re-occurring at Moonlight (runtime) involving some of the same IP addresses that were identified as socks of User:hAl back in January. Looking at the histories, I see that the IPs were blocked for two weeks then, and since then have resumed editing following the same interests and patterns as the original banned user. Is that normal practice when a user is indefinitely blocked, that they just continue as normal (but using their IP address) after a couple of weeks? I don't want to maintain an indefinite vendetta, but it appears that their controversial and unreasonable deletions are causing edit wars and bad feeling on that page, and possibly elsewhere if old habits are as expected. I'm trying to stem the edit wars and request some discussion, but this does seem wearisome after all the old hassles that led up to hAl's final block. Maybe you could have a look. --Nigelj (talk) 17:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I blocked 86.83.239.142 6 months for clear block evasion; IIRC this was the same static IP that HAl has been using for a while (hence his first 2-week block on that IP). I'm not sure about 70.226.165.186; I'd have to look into HAl's MO more closely as it's been a while. –MuZemike 18:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks very much. I think the other problematic IP at Moonlight (runtime) might be 130.57.22.201, but this is not one that was identified with hAl at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HAl/Archive. --Nigelj (talk) 18:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi again. Sorry to go on, but try as I have to get them to discuss, both 130.57.22.201 and 70.226.165.186 have gone way beyond WP:3RR at Moonlight (runtime). I'm now sure neither of these are actually hAl, but they both need some action I think at the moment. --Nigelj (talk) 21:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm one of the IP address involved (I admit), but I'd rather see the other IP address (130.57.22.201) blocked from this site because I'm trying my best to be a responsible user, not a vandal, and the other IP is associated with Novell, and he is probably a PR member and is censoring the truth. 70.226.165.186 (talk) 21:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I will not repeat myself. –MuZemike 21:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
At the very least, put the refrences back in and tell the other IP to deal with it. 70.226.165.186 (talk) 21:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I am not going to resolve your dispute for you. If I protected The Wrong Version, then too bad. –MuZemike 21:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, I have a idea: Let's shift out all of the criticism of Moonlight into a new section, and then, if it's OK with everyone, add back the refrences to Techrights and The Source. 70.226.165.186 (talk) 22:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Doesn't seem like a bad idea. Why don't you propose it on the talk page and see what happens? You might get some people to agree on that. –MuZemike 22:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

On a side note, there seems to be a smaller edit war over at Mono (software). Can you come and resovle this little dispute? Willimm (talk) 15:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I have asked you to provide evidence of your claims on the Mono_(software) article and you have been unable to do so, instead deciding that reverting someone else's factually accurate edit and injecting unsupported claims and refusing to discuss it on the Discussion page was the way you wanted to proceed. NovellGuy (talk) 16:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Brought up at SPI. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HAl. –MuZemike 17:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

User:2007apm

I got an e-mail from User:2007apm asking me to take a look at the block carried out following this SPI (February 2010). The initial e-mail was back in February 2010 and nothing was done then, but the user e-mailed again recently (August 2010) and I'd like to try and sort this out. Would you be able to take another look and see if you can double-check how strong the evidence is connecting the accounts? The dates of editing don't quite seem to match the usual pattern here as far as I can tell. I've asked User:Future Perfect at Sunrise to have a look as well (as he blocked most of the Emperordarius socks). You could both comment on his talk page where he has filed several unblock requests that were declined without considering whether the initial identification as a sock was correct or not. If there is evidence that shouldn't be discussed on-wiki (to avoid revealing how certain behavioural identifications are made) please feel free to e-mail me. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 22:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I responded via email. –MuZemike 22:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 23:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

List of charismatic leaders

Please note that this article was a spin off from Charismatic authority. It was originally very well sourced to reputable sources. Logically speaking any example that was not used by Weber himself cannot be used anymore in the article charismatic authority. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_charismatic_leaders_as_defined_by_Max_Weber's_classification_of_authority_(2nd_nomination) Andries (talk) 20:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the vast majority of the others in that deletion discussion did not see it that way. They saw synthesis of sources going on, and that was how I interpreted the rough consensus for that AFD. –MuZemike 20:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I understand that. But why was it not possible to leave the list with only the most prominent examples? Now the article is devoid of examples and logically should remain that way. Andries (talk) 20:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Jossi and I agreed that the list should stay and we rarely agreed on anything. Andries (talk) 20:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I judged the consensus in that AFD and not the content. If I was going to judge the content, then I would have !voted and not closed it. If you disagree with my close of the AFD, then please take it to deletion review. As far as I am concerned, I do not think I erred in closing that AFD unless I egregiously overlooked something in that discussion. –MuZemike 20:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I will do. The list was not clearly not synthesis of sources when it was created it years ago. People complaining about synthesis of sources should have reverted to a much older version. All the sources that were used then used Weber's definition. Andries (talk) 20:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

ANI

You are mentioned (in a nice way). Keep up the good work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Toddst1_misconduct RIPGC (talk) 04:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Question on Teach For Us

Hi MuZemike, I'm hoping to be able to talk about what happened with the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teach_For_Us . I was working with Cirt (talk) and improving the article during the past week. I guess someone that wasn't supposed to edit things moved it around. I don't know that person. Is there anything else that you think needs to be improved on the page before it is restored? I'm relatively novice at this and need some direction if you think something should change. Thanks. Ageller (talk) 01:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't look like there is. If you're willing to continue work on the article, then I have no problem restoring it. If you weren't aware, it was moved by a banned user who violated his ban, which was why I deleted it. –MuZemike 01:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for moving it back. Not sure why that user decided to fiddle with our page in particular. Ageller (talk) 04:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Is there anything I need to be doing to initiate the move of the page? Just making sure you don't need more info from me. Ageller (talk) 13:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Doesn't look like there is, as long as Cirt is OK with it. It seems like a pretty decent start IMO. –MuZemike 14:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Deleted Welcome Page?

Hi, just wondering why you deleted my welcome page? --MaxwellEdisonPhD (talk) 00:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I will respond to you via email, if you do not mind. –MuZemike 00:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Anons Users

I would consider, since you seem to be accumulating alot of talk page protections due to sockpuppetry, creating a talk page for anons and others and and leave this one permanently semi-protected. J.Delanoy (I do believe) does that and a couple other users, and it seems to work out well for them. If anyone breaks through, they are easy to fish out. :) - NeutralhomerTalk • 14:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

User page protection

As an admin, why don't you just protect your user page? I can't think of a time that even a confirmed editor has any business editing your user page.—Kww(talk) 19:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I just semi-protected it, unless you mean full-protection, which I won't do at this time. I actually get a couple of good faith users who tweak my userpage once in a while :) –MuZemike 19:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Template deletion

Hey Muze. Can you deleted {{Futurama Barnstar}}? I replaced it with anotherone that actually has a picture on it. GamerPro64 (talk) 19:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

There you go. –MuZemike 19:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Ken6175

It appears this user has made a reasonable unblock request. I would like to unblock them, but wanted to check with you (as the blocking admin) first. TNXMan 18:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I'd say he retracted the threat and is good to unblock. –MuZemike 19:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I've unblocked them. TNXMan 20:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ryan kirkpatrick

Could you possibly have a look at this please? In addition to terrorism edits, he is now creating air crash articles, meaning the duck is quacking rather loudly. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 15:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you userfy?

I wanted to use the excellent early sourcing of this list to improve the article charismatic authority

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_charismatic_leaders_as_defined_by_Max_Weber%27s_classification_of_authority

I understand that there are problems with the subjective criteria for this list , but I continue to disagree completely that this was a synthesis of sources: we took great care to stay close to the sources, because the initial editor and I did not agree on anything.

It is not my intention to copy or merge the list into the article, but to provide attributed examples. Andries (talk) 18:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I made note in the deletion review. If nobody objects, then I can go ahead and do that. I personally don't see a reason not to userfy. –MuZemike 18:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

unomi talk page

I believe before protecting it, you should have removed PA. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain how full-protecting this blocked user's talk page is appropriate, especially considering Wikipedia:Protection policy#Blocked users? It's pretty clear that Unomi is trying to prevent me from linking to a Wikiquette alert regarding him, which contains a bunch of diffs of his recent incivility and personal attacks. This would be relevant evidence for an uninvolved admin to see if/when an unblock is requested. I don't agree that this constitutes "unnecessary provocation", but that's just my opinion. SnottyWong confabulate 20:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
And how in the world could you protected the talk page without removing his dirty PA. You should have removed his talk page and email access, not do what he wants.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, may I please ask you to remove my message too? That talk page is not the right place to be.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Snottywong, I fail to see how full-protecting his user talk page upon request is inappropriate. Unless he socks between now and when the full-protection expires, I see this as benefiting both Unomi and those whom he has qualms with currently. Furthermore, I feel like simply revoking talk page would do nothing more than "silence one side" (given, I haven't looked at the situation in detail; I just honored Unomi's request, which seemed like it was in good faith). And to allow others to keep wailing on him on his talk page. He's indefinitely blocked right now, and you and Mbz1 are more than happy to state your cases against his unblock should he request it after the full-protection expires. Also, a little "cooling off" period doesn't hurt IMO, which is what I think Unomi wanted.
Mbz1, your point is well-taken, and I have removed that one personal attack as you pointed out. You're right that that should not have been there. –MuZemike 21:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I fail to see why a blocked user should be given any latitude for special requests like this one, but I will defer to your good judgement as an administrator. Given your involvement in this situation, I assume you would be considered an involved administrator with respect to this, and therefore ineligible to handle Unomi's eventual unblock request? SnottyWong comment 22:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
You're right. I wouldn't be reviewing any future unblocks as far as this situation is concerned. I mean, if this is a means to diffuse a situation and ensuing drama, then I hope I have done the right thing here. –MuZemike 22:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)