Misplaced Pages

User:MuZemike/Menu

• 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 Misplaced Pages:Why was my page deleted?

Sock case

Thanks. I knew that something smelled fishy about all of this in regard to the user who filed the sockpuppet case, I just didn't realize how involved it was. I've come across one or two of the related sock accounts in the past. I have one question that is bugging me and maybe you can shed some light on it. Although technically, Sift&Winnow did not violate WP:SOCK, he nevertheless was deceptive by not revealing he had made the IP posts that I thought were by Tre=poi and then continued to post to the case, essentially attempting to egg it on for three days. He never once intimated that he was the IP and was apparently quite comfortable with letting me be subjected to a needless and unwarranted sockpuppet accusation. Had I realized the filing party was actually an already blocked sockmaster, it would have totally explained his/her suspicion that the IP was used to "hound" him. It was paranoia for a different reason, but he was bold at that. Anyway, though Sift&Winnow was not socking, he was being - something not above board. It certainly puts him on the "grain of salt" side of the equation regarding trust. Should any issues result going forward with him, what does one call this and how in the spirit of basic Misplaced Pages guidelines does this fall? Oh, and I noticed you deleted all of the articles that Tre=poi created except for Charles Johnston (captive of Native Americans). I wondered about that one. I will nominate the small number of redirect pages that were made that redirect to the now deleted articles. Thanks. LaVidaLoca (talk) 16:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Anything that ItsLassieTime and his endless socks created is subject to deletion. (There is further discussion of this on Brandon's talk page.) Sift&Winnow, if not another sock, might have been naive but hopefully has learned some things from this process. One thing it might have learned is the "Plaxico" principle that ILT itself has still not learned, despite how things went down last April when the initial ILT frenzy occurred. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I see that LaVidaLoca was previously accused of being a sock of Wildhartlivie, back in July or so. It's always fun to be falsely accused of sockpuppetry. It's even more fun when the accuser turns out to be a banned user, although that was not the case in July. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

To tell you people the truth, I had no idea that this would end up being ItsLassieTime when I recommended to Brandon that CU be run. All I knew that the IP belonged to somebody, I didn't know what type of shenanigans was going on here, and, frankly, the back-and-forth banter was driving me crazy – which was why I asked CU to put an end to it. Personally, I was shocked when I heard the result.

I should have deleted all creations by the socks (the majority of them being non-free images) per G5; I tried to be as careful as I could be to not delete those which I thought had some significant contributions by others (and no, adding categories, stub-sorting, or otherwise minor edits do not count), which was why I left a couple of pages undeleted. As last time, I left a list of those deleted pages (on the SPI case and also an WP:AN) for full transparency. MuZemike 17:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

As for Sift&Winnow not disclosing his IP, I don't blame him for not doing so. It's rather private information to give out the IP you're editing from. MuZemike 17:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It fits the ILT profile, although it could fit other abusive editors as well. Regarding the IP, it's best to either edit from an IP all the time or from a registered user all the time, as switching back and forth is a deceptive practice. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. I fairly much quit editing after the first sock case and didn't intend to return, even though I like to work here. I returned to work for the fall bulb sales season and when it ended I started editing again and I must say, it is no fun when you get caught in the middle of something like this. Something felt so wrong about all of the accusation, but I never realized there would be that prolific of an involvement. I apologize for the banter, I just felt like I needed to redirect the comments to the salient issue. I will post the other article for deletion as created by a known sock unless there is an objection. It's more skirting the issue of notability far more than the other articles. I appreciate the comment about Sift&Winnow not disclosing his IP, except he was willing to let me "hang" as well as stick around to encourage and watch it, while telling me to assume good faith. To me, that was more deceptive than editing from both, especially considering that someone else was being raked over the coals for it. Eeps. Anyway, thanks for your views and back to that new granddaughter and her first Thanksgiving weekend. LaVidaLoca (talk) 17:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, if you wish. I mean, another editor came in there and made a couple of different edits, so that looked a hairy borderline as far as G5 is concerned. MuZemike 17:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

He raises a good point - how was S&W allowed to get away with that shenanigan? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, IMO blocking would only be counterproductive here. Anyways, I've asked him why he used that IP in the way he did on his talk page. It looks like Sift&Winnow is in pretty good standing (i.e. no blocks, contribs look good, no bad run-ins, etc.); there has to be some other reason (other than abuse or deception) behind this. MuZemike 20:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

If he stonewalls and won't answer, that would undermine his credibility of "good standing". If it's a sensitive matter, he should send you an e-mail on the subject. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

In the end, I wouldn't be surprised if the "various culprits" turn out to be a single entity, a master-puppet-master with a grand scheme to take over the entire site through disinformation, the encouragement of bottom-feeding drama-mongers such as Bugs, and a ruthless plan to drive off all of the productive members through chaos, and to rid the rest of the literate through the propagation of run-on sentences and hyper-hyphen usage. Ann Mathgeix (talk) 22:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

← Uh, who are you, and where'd you come from? MuZemike 22:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

That's another Pioneercourthouse and/or ItsLassieTime sock, using an anagram of Axmann Eight. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I say and/or because who it specifically is, is not very important. RBI. WP:DENY. etc. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

 Confirmed by Risker as a sock of Pioneercourthouse and blizzocked. MuZemike 22:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Roger. I wonder if it's time for another "sweep" to look for PCH sleeper accounts. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Back to the original case, I blocked this one as an obvious sock: TempestStorm (talk · contribs). Wknight94 12:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Good block. There has to be some underlying IP or range somewhere, but I don't think CU found it. MuZemike 16:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

JTSalazar

That was fast! I reverted the EVHS page back to the last edit before his, but he created a new article, 2009–10 New Mexico Lobos basketball team. What do you think, should I take it to AfD or just go ahead and do a G5 speedy deletion? LadyofShalott 04:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it had some edits by others, so G5 wouldn't apply. MuZemike 04:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Good point - thanks! LadyofShalott 04:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

In that, I mean some more significant edits besides minor edits, stub-sorting, etc. MuZemike 04:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI: I started Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/2009–10 New Mexico Lobos basketball team earlier. LadyofShalott 06:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:SPI/ILOVEmusicAPPRECIATION

Hello there and thanks for the redirect although I think it must be reverted back because Hunglow12 registered on Nov. 30 while ILOVEmusicAPPRECIATION registered on Dec. 1. Thanks. E Wing (talk) 21:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Redirected back. Thank you for letting me know. MuZemike 21:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Tony Capucci

I don't see the logic of merging an article about someone who fails WP:PORNBIO into a list of porn performers. If they are so-to-speak proven to be not notable, why would we include them there? (I understand that the list in question is already littered with red links, but I'm trying to get that changed.) On a more procedural note, the list itself is up for deletion, so the merge may be inappropriate. Can you take another look at your close? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

A couple of editors have indicated that a merge is possible (at least Benjiboi gave a decent argument in support of a merge). I gave them the benefit of the doubt that it can be done. MuZemike 20:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Please see DRV here. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

The IP whom you warned seconds ago has already vandalised Hate Crime after your message to him. He has chosen not to heed the warning. Evlekis (talk) 20:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked 6 months (schoolblock). MuZemike 20:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Quote

The first anonymous quote on your user page sounded rather intriguing so I did a quick search for it and found it. Unless you were purposely censoring it's author ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 22:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for that. No censorship was intended. MuZemike 01:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

POV sock

Hi MuZemike, thank you for doing such a good job blocking disruptive socks. I want to let you know that your time and work is highly appreciated by those of us who have had to deal with them. I have another favor to ask of you. You previously blocked User:GoonerDP and his sock User:Comancheros. Well now he/she's back making a slew of extreme POV edits: I don't have a particular interest or expertise in these topics but it's clear to me that its highly inappropriate and offensive to say the least. Indeed, many repeated warnings in the past have not had any effect at all on his/her behavior and have come to nil. What do you think should be done about this? Nirvana888 (talk) 00:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

As far as sock puppetry is concerned, there's nothing to do unless he's using socks again. And I think the NPOV noticeboard mainly concerns with NPOV issues with articles as opposed to NPOV issues with editors. For no better choice of a venue I can think of to voice this concern, try posting at WP:ANI. MuZemike 02:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

David Thorne (27bslash6) Article

Thankyou for locking the article temporarily. Like the page on Maddox, this article needs to be locked. There are too many people, one troll in particular, adding personal comments of a degrading nature based purely on the fact they dislike the person highlighted. While I did not create this article, I have edited it without any bias towards the subject. David Thorne is certainly an interesting character that has caused some ruckus on the internet of late but this article needs to remain fact based without slander or personal attacks on him. Simon Dempsey (talk) 01:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

User:ArchitectBoiseIdaho

You have indef'ed this user, but regardless of the email privilege, this priority can be abused by him as a part of continuing the legal threat issue. Maybe you should consider revoking the email privilege as well? Thanks, - _{Boeing7107isdelicious|SPRiCh miT meineN PiloteN} 08:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Is he causing abuse via email? If not, then it needs to remain enabled, in the case he actually does retract his legal threat. Big fat chance, however. MuZemike 08:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Redirect

Shouldn't the redirect of the Mr Hicks 111 = NoCal100 sockpuppet investigation be given as this rather than the one you provided in the edit summary, namely ? Regards Nishidani (talk) 16:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. MuZemike 18:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Question

Hey, thanks for commenting in my RfA. Rather than cluttering there, I thought I would just ask. What issue do you have exactly with Question 4, so I'm aware? Grsz 19:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to take another look at that, because I can see where I may have misread something in that response. MuZemike 19:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Struck the Q4 part out. I'm afraid I have to stay with my "oppose" though. Sorry, MuZemike 19:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for looking, and I understand your edit summary. Thanks, Grsz 19:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Seeking your review of Future Ads

Hello MyZemike. Last month, I had created an entry for Future Ads which you had deleted, restored, then moved for userfication. I have made some revisions to the entry, and worked with 2 other editors who had also been involved. Those 2 editors said that the entry looks good now, and should be ready for posting, but I wanted to check in with you as well. I would love to get your feedback on the revised entry. Would you mind taking a look? Thanks so much in advance. I appreciate it. The entry can be found at: User:Mwebbcom/Future Ads.

Also, the latest comments from the other 2 editors can be seen at the bottom of my talk page: User talk:Mwebbcom.

Thanks again so much! Mwebbcom (talk) 20:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Help

Hey there, this IP sock of User:Montaj13 is editing again here (another Dynasty article she likes), would you mind blocking? Thx.— TAnthony 21:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked 3 months. If any other IPs start up again, let me know. MuZemike 22:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: your talk page slogan(?) ^^

Thanks for reminding me :-) Happy holidays. Proofreader77 (talk) 22:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Connecting two Recent SPIs

Could I ask you to consider reopening the case at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Canadian_Monkey/Archive? In the short time since you closed it, the Canadian Monkey (talk · contribs · count) account has reaactivated and been blocked as a puppet of NoCal100 and several others collowing this other investigationMisplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/NoCal100/Archive. We therefore now have a checkuser trail to compare Bree and the two Canadian IP addresses he/she used with the canadian-named account and its identified puppet master Template:User2:Nocal100 who has an interest in Canadian geography, not to mention edit wars to do with the Arab-Israeli dispute. Given that we now know that CM was part of an active puppet farm at the time of the case, I should think it is worth asking the checkuser involved in confirming CM as part of a puppet farm to check the Bree accoutn too.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)