User talk:MuZemike

Or: The War Room

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

I'd like to express my support, my compassion and my humanity to the victims of the human catastrophe in Haiti.
Please, donate to your local Aid Agency or the RED CROSS

Deleted pages – if I deleted a page you were involved with in which you have an issue with, talk to me about it first here. I will be happy to userfy for you, restore the page if I believed to have made an error in judgment, or fulfill any other request within reason. If you would like a copy of any other deleted page to work on, also let me know. Keep in mind that I will not, for any reason, restore copyright violations or attack pages. See Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted?

Welcome to my talk page! Please do not bring discussions here from other pages. Please use diffs when talking about edits. If you leave me a message on my talk page, I will reply on my talk page, so you may want to watch this page. I will not continue to watch a talk page if the discussion has migrated. I check my watchlist regularly. I don't always add talk pages to my watchlist if I comment on them, unless it's a user talk page or I started an important discussion. Thank you. Oh, and remember to post new comments and topics at the bottom of the page or the section in which you are discussing and sign every post you make here by simply adding four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your message.

Your recent block Hi, I noticed you just blocked 190fordhouse; I tried repeatedly in three languages to engage this user in discussion over whether he had sources for any of his data points or whether it was all just guesses and mischief, but he refused to respond. Is it possible for you to automatically revert those edits of his which have not been manually undone already? I've reverted several of his edits to articles on my watchlist that I knew to be false and even tracked him to related articles and reverted him there, as have other editors, but what's really needed is to undo the damage we haven't caught or don't have time to chase down. Thanks, I'll watch this page for your reply, Abrazame (talk) 08:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC) You can do that. There shouldn't be anything stopping you from reverting those edits which you know aren't within the appropriate guidelines and policies. –MuZemike 08:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC) If you go to any of their contributions (190fordhouse, Statmo1921, SonnywithaChancefan, 67.85.172.6) you should be able to pinpoint any of the "damage" made. –MuZemike 08:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC) I thought administrators could roll all of a vandal's edits back with one click of a button. This guy has made dozens a day as 190fordhouse, I shudder to think how many he's made under his other names; it's too much for one person to click onto each edit, click "diff", click "undo", and click "save" for each one. Abrazame (talk) 09:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC) You're thinking of Special:Nuke, where admins can delete all of a vandal's created pages with one click. –MuZemike 17:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC) There is a script for mass rollbacks, but it only works if the edit's the newest revision of a page, and there isn't going to be a manual check before the rollback takes place. Do you want to do that? Tim Song (talk) 19:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Hi Tim, thanks to both of you for responding. It seems like that would be called for here. On the off chance that this editor made any responsible edits among all the vandalism (for lack of a better word) it should be his efforts to restore them — preferably with references this time to make sure he's not just repeating his pattern — and not ours to pore over hundreds of edits and fact-check each one. It's not like he did two a day or two a week, he often made a dozen a day under the one username I was following and apparently more under the others. If those edits are not the most recent, then I guess those articles have eyes on them and some of those edits were likely reverts. If those edits are the most recent, it's likely they're low-traffic articles that could take quite a long time for someone to arrive and recognize the data is erroneous. If you agree with my assessment, I'd appreciate if you could use the mass rollbacks. I would point out that the guy has not once responded on his talk page to defend or explain a single edit. Thanks, Abrazame (talk) 00:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC) The user has surfaced again under I.P. addressevidence here and is adding links to dates again. Can you give them a warning or block them? I thought that when you are blocked you may not edit until blocking period ends.Carmaker1 (talk) 10:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC) I think we might have a new sockpuppet on our hands, Hammond1993. This user just started editing on the 29th, just days after the sockpuppets were blocked and editing some of the same articles that 190fordhouse, Statmo1921, SonnywithaChancefan, and 67.85.172.6 also edited with some of the same date changing on albums and singles, such as Shedrack Anderson "III", Brandi Williams, Blaque, Blaque Out, Waiting for Tonight, Natina Reed, Where My Girls At?, Get Along with You, Caught out There, Blaque (album), I'm Good (Blaque song) and Jackson family. Aspects (talk) 23:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC) I appreciate MuZemike's continued efforts to get to the bottom of this, but I ask again: is it not reasonable to roll back all of this editor's edits, especially now that he has been blocked indefinitely? It is completly unclear whether this has been done already and if not, why not. Abrazame (talk) 19:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC) The problem is that I don't know of any tools that will do them all at one like that. (Tim, do you know of any?) I'd be happy to grant you the rollback ability to help expedite such reverting (just don't abuse it or attempt to use it for anything other than vandalism). –MuZemike 17:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC) User:John254/mass rollback.js can roll back all edits that can be rolled back. I've done one on Hammond1993's edits. Tim Song (talk) 18:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC) User:Alinovic The checkuser case of User:Alinovic left me with a feeling that we might have acted too fast in this case. I think the problem could have been taken care of with less invasive sanctions - for example topic banning Alinovic from linguistics and talk:linguistics untill we have better evidence. I don't generally like the duck rule as the sole basis for sactions as harsh as indefinte blocks, but prefer that any doubt should benefit the accused party. You mention in your closure that the user admitted to socking, that would of course be sufficient evidence for an indefinite block. I did not find any such admission in the link you provided, perhaps you can point me towards it? ·Maunus·ƛ· 08:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC) OK, I've unblocked the user, after (what is now) several users coming to me and saying that I may have erred here in judgment. –MuZemike 16:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Thanks. I do strongly suspect (s)he is a sock - but I am willing to give him/her a chance to show that (s)he isn't. ·Maunus·ƛ· 16:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC) This Interesting... This is an interesting allegation (sockpuppetry). Is there a way one can change or delete an existing user name? For identification purposes, I would rather use a different user name (MuJami). As Racepacket pointed out, I made this request previously. As there does not appear to be a method to edit one's user name I thought it best to create a "new" profile. Unfortunately (yet understandably)someone misconstrued this act as sockpuppetry. Please advise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John E. Rhea (talk • contribs) 01:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC) You were using both accounts interchangably, hence the block. If you wish to use the MuJami account, I can unblock that one and then block the John E. Rhea (just so that you or nobody else can use that account). How does that sound? –MuZemike 01:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Yes, let's do that. I'd rather use the MuJami account...Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by John E. Rhea (talk • contribs) 01:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)  Done I have now switched the blocks. You should be able to edit now with the MuJami account. If you have any other questions, please let me know. Thank you, –MuZemike 01:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC) User:Sarastro1 Could you please be more restrained with the duck test please? He isn't BlackJack (per CU) and it is not rational for some guy to build up two very long articles for FA/GA such as Wally Hammond and Wilfred Rhodes which would probably take 30+ hours each if their raison d'etre is to sock for extra reverts and votes. BlackJack is very well known at WP:CRIC and two people touching an article doesn't guarantee linkage by any means YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Ah, crap. I'm so sorry. Yeah, perhaps I should back off the pedal a bit. –MuZemike 04:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Hello. I would just like to point out that it was not difficult to tell that I am not a sock of Blackjack, if you simply checked my contributions and talk pages. BJ and I had several discussions on our talk pages and he even changed things I had written in articles. I suspect that somewhere along the line, you and I have both been entangled in a dispute between two other users, Blackjack and a multiple sockpuppet going under various names. I was misguided enough to stick up for BJ, who had been very helpful and welcoming when I first joined wikipedia - which is more than has happened here. There are some slightly dubious things going on at the moment, and it would be quite nice if people spent more time looking into this rather than supporting a user, who keeps persecuting Blackjack, by blocking right, left and centre. Feel free to check out Richard Daft, HughGal, BrownEdge and several others, including IP addresses. I do not plan to get involved in this any more, in case I am accused of being anyone else. I will stick to the articles, and not worry about others being unjustly treated.--Sarastro1 (talk) 21:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC) User that was recently banned... We left you messages on top of your page concerning the user you blocked. It appears to me that they edited under the profile of User:JaeDizzley14 and User:995Star before creating User:190fordhouse. For that reason this user is guilty of more sock puppetry and would be host, as JaeDizzley14/995Star made similar edits before 190fordhouse signed up on July 27, 2009. Please read the other discussion at the top of page as most of us aren't administrators and can't perform certain functions. User:Hammond1993 is a new creation by User:JaeDizzley14/User:190fordhouse/User:995Star and appears to be more destructive.Carmaker1 (talk) 17:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Aw, crap, I didn't see it, then. Probably someone else posted on the bottom of the page, and I didn't see your post near the top. I'll look into it. –MuZemike 17:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Fits the pattern down to a "T". Sock indefinitely blocked and tagged, 190fordhouse now indefed. –MuZemike 17:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Thank you so much, it's a relief that hopefully more of the newer edits on pages will be relevant ones.Carmaker1 (talk) 17:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC) User:MuZemike/Plaxico Is your draft going to mainspaced any time soon? See related discussion. –xenotalk 20:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC) I'm not quite sure the term is notable enough. All I know is that I should have it reliiably sourced. –MuZemike 20:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC) I'm curious to know if anyone outside wikipedia uses it. A more stark/severe metaphor than Plaxico Burress might be the Biblical figure Haman. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Sock Hello, MuZemike. Please, see this, urgent action is needed User_talk:Tbsdy_lives#Human_Rights_Believer_.28II_appearance.29 Tbsdy is not online now, and i trust in your judgment. Human Right Believer was highly DE editor, as all of . [1] i send suspect, he just reverted. There is no question about that, it's him. For more information, i am here. --Tadija (talk) 21:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Wow, that was fast! Thanks, as you see, there is already tons of vandal revert to be done. If more time passes, more things to revert. Highly DE! --Tadija (talk) 21:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC) User:Dominic ran a check,  Confirmed that Human Rights Believer Mex Ray Trex, and User:Barnsey Boo are the same. The underlying IP has also been hardblocked. –MuZemike 21:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Ok, i will ask him in the future. All best, --Tadija (talk) 21:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Thanks Thanks yet again. I truly appreciate the speed and efficiency. Cheers, -Thibbs (talk) 02:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Thank you Hi MuZemike, thank you so much for your quick actions on dealing with User talk:Fbeals. Both the SPI board and the Spam reporting board can tend to be a bit slow to pick up and deal with issues, and I appreciate your speedy work. Given that the violations were happening on BLPs, I'm glad that we could get this sorted out quickly. Thank you again! Jhfortier (talk) 04:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Happy face! Hello MuZemike, Andyzweb has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Thanks for providing copies of those articles andyzweb (talk) 23:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC) blocky fun of Sfcongeredwards You've been fiddling with the block of Sfcongeredwards (talk · contribs). What's up? It seems like a run-of-the-mill vandal who is claiming hacked account. tedder (talk) 23:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Right. I was going to AGF until I looked into it a bit further and saw your talk page comment. I also wasn't quite sure as to how to proceed with the "compromised account" situation. Anyways, that may very well be moot. I'll keep the block as-is. –MuZemike 23:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Gotcha. No worries, I just couldn't piece it all together from your block comments. The editor is asking for an unblock, I'll try to explain things a little further. tedder (talk) 23:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Tfoxworth's reincarnations Despite your recent block on 2 IP ranges, permanently banned Tfoxworth is back today as User:166.166.706.222 and User:166.164.161.179 and User:166.164.167.219, etc. Please block. FactStraight (talk) 04:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC) I extended the range on the one rangeblock. Can you correct the one IP? It's impossible to have a "166.166.706.222". –MuZemike 04:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC) See dif he's using as I write. FactStraight (talk) 04:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Yep, I just saw the other IP. I blocked that /19 range, too. Unfortunately, I have to keep the length on that rangeblock short as there are some recent good faith contributions by other people there. –MuZemike 04:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)