Misplaced Pages

User talk:MuZemike: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:53, 24 November 2010 editMiszaBot III (talk | contribs)597,462 editsm Archiving 6 thread(s) (older than 72h) to User talk:MuZemike/Archive 7, User talk:MuZemike/Archive 6.← Previous edit Revision as of 19:58, 24 November 2010 edit undoKww (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers82,486 edits →blocking dynamics: new sectionNext edit →
Line 141: Line 141:
:I would concede if you want to archive the upper part of the discussion, but the proposal is fresh. If you want it to go to the archives the proposal could be moved to its own section for discussion.--] (]) 01:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC) :I would concede if you want to archive the upper part of the discussion, but the proposal is fresh. If you want it to go to the archives the proposal could be moved to its own section for discussion.--] (]) 01:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
::<small>(now that I am "cooled off" a little, btw, one sentence struck above)</small> There probably is not much a point to close only part of the discussion. I mean, Ncmvocalist has a point, though. Calling for a desysop on ANI is akin to calling for a lynch mob (unless that's the point, then I'll stop while ahead). I say that because nobody has ever been desysopped on the account of an ANI straw poll; even if there is a consensus for it, you or someone would end up probably taking it to ArbCom for investigation, anyways. Hence, I personally don't see much of a point in that, either. Anyways, it's not my board, and I suppose one is entitled to waste one's time there, like we all do at one point or another. –] 01:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC) ::<small>(now that I am "cooled off" a little, btw, one sentence struck above)</small> There probably is not much a point to close only part of the discussion. I mean, Ncmvocalist has a point, though. Calling for a desysop on ANI is akin to calling for a lynch mob (unless that's the point, then I'll stop while ahead). I say that because nobody has ever been desysopped on the account of an ANI straw poll; even if there is a consensus for it, you or someone would end up probably taking it to ArbCom for investigation, anyways. Hence, I personally don't see much of a point in that, either. Anyways, it's not my board, and I suppose one is entitled to waste one's time there, like we all do at one point or another. –] 01:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

== blocking dynamics ==

I wanted to respond here with a bit more detail. Whenever I block a dynamic IP, I monitor the articles the dynamic has been vandalizing. If I see that the vandalism hops to a related IP, I unblock the original because it obviously is no longer associated with the vandal. With child vandals (like this one), they usually don't know how to change their IP.&mdash;](]) 19:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:58, 24 November 2010

Or: The War Room

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


User:MuZemike/Menu

Archiving icon
Archives
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9
Archive 10Archive 11

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Per-banned user asking to be reinstated

(talk page stalker)Looks like I made an adoption offer to a banned editor. First, do you know who he/she is and second is can I take the stuff he said at face value and AGF?--intelati 17:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Not at this point, I cannot tell. –MuZemike 17:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello, MuZemike. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.--intelati 20:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: No-hitter lists

No need to apologize, MuZemike. I only created those no-hitter "lists" because there are lists for other teams now, as well as a navbox for the pages. Of course I knew that these two lists would probably be deleted; I just thought that if the Mets or Padres actually did throw no-hitters in the future, then it would save someone time because the pages would already be here. It is fine by me if they are deleted. - PM800 (talk) 19:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Nintendo Power Awards

I noticed that you found references for Ninja Gaiden III about the Nintendo Power Awards. Do you have references to other years as well? Maybe one that F-Zero was in? GamerPro64 (talk) 22:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, F-Zero was that same year, and unfortunately, it received only one nomination for "Best Play Control" in the Super NES category and was runner-up behind Super Mario World. –MuZemike 22:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Well that sucks. At least I have the Top 200, though. GamerPro64 (talk) 22:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Help!!

Hi there MUZE, VASCO here,

Please have a look at Julio Álvarez and see what you can do, an anon "user" (don't know if it's his girlfriend or just one lunatic) has been inserting all kind of lies (POV/weasel, saying this player is a Spanish international when he's NOT, etc, etc).

If you check the article's edit history, on 12 June 2010, we already had to put up with this vandal's encyclopedia of mayhem in 16 "marvellous" volumes, which i rolledback. Now, i am sorry but i could not resist, and sent him a message. I did not use any vile language or anything, but i am afraid i might have "fed the troll" (it's very unlikely, though, that he will read anything, as i think he has a dynamic IP).

Sorry for any inconvenience, thank you very much in advance - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 02:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe the blocks were made after the fact, so I don't think there is much to worry about here at the moment. –MuZemike 02:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Intermediate action requested at File:4chan front page 2010.png

The description "|Description=A screenshot of 4chan's 2010 front page with new heading logo and footer and a Misplaced Pages Fundraiser banner. Images in the "Recent Images" section are blanked to meet Fair Use criteria." of the file needs to be modified. This modification is non-controversial, as it corrects the description to match the currently protected version. You may find a correct description for the current version at this diff's source as: "|Description=A screenshot of 4chan's 2009 front page with new heading logo and footer. Images in the "Recent Images" section are blanked to meet Fair Use criteria. " Such a change would be non-controversial, as this issue is not a part of the content debate which required the protection. Many thanks, Fifelfoo (talk) 13:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Request for bot for newsletter delivery

On behalf of the Indian WikiProject, I'd like to request if MuZebot could be made available to perform the delivery of the project's newsletter to its participants. The newsletter is located here and the list of participants on whose talk pages it is to be delivered is here. Any help would be appreciated, since our regular bot is down for a while. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 19:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done by User:Od Mishehu. Thanks, anyway! Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 14:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Half million Asian and British IPs blocked for 1 to 3 months

Hi. I was looking at recent blocks and noticed you'd blocked a giant swath of IPs:

I can't imagine any vandalism or disruption from one person in that range sufficient to justify such a gigantic rangeblock but I may be missing something. What's going on?

Thanks, --A. B. 23:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Puppies drowned in boiling water, unless one has a better idea as to how to handle this. –MuZemike 23:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Note that there are about 50-60 more abusive account names which are not listed there that have been blocked by myself or by other admins and likely locked by the Stewards. –MuZemike 23:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm not seeing any edits to our articles by the accounts in that checkuser report. Is this really something so bad as to justify blocking off such a big chunk of British IPs?
If I was calling the shots, I'd let this person just create a bunch of accounts, unblocked, until they got bored. Then I'd block them after they stopped. If they started using the accounts to damage our content, then I'd change that plan but I'm not sure that's their pattern from what I see.
If you haven't already, I strongly recommend you take your decision to the broader community (perhaps at WP:ANI) for discussion. I don't feel comfortable with these rangeblocks.
--A. B. 23:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
OK, first, I will compile a list of every abuse account and every attack page so the community knows what we're dealing with here. Note that this will take a while. –MuZemike 23:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Please don't. It took a long time to oversight all of those. I do think, though, that these blocks are a bit large. Huge rangeblocks do far more damage than an abusive account name that lasts for 15 seconds while a steward fills out the form. J.delanoyadds 23:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, then I have nothing to stand on in the community's view, and hence I have no choice and have unblocked all the ranges. Keep in mind that we let the vandal win here. –MuZemike 00:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Look, I'm not the boss here and I don't have all the answers. If you think these rangeblocks are the way to go, then I suggest you raise the issue at WP:ANI. I also suggest undeleting the SPI page temporarily.
I note that we had 1682 edits from 820 IPs in the 7 178.xxx.xxx.xxx ranges during the last 4 months. I tried to get a count of the edits from 179.xxx.xxx.xxx but my text editor crashed; the file was about the same size, so I think you had a comparable number of edits from the 179 range as from the 7 178 ranges combined. If so, that's about 25 to 30 edits/day from those 8 IP ranges.
--A. B. 01:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
PS, however this ends up getting handled, thanks for all your work investigating and documenting this. --A. B. 01:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Please stop the cover-up

YMs RfC doesn't address whether or not he should remain an administrator, the scope of the RfC was well detailed and that discussion is outside it's scope. Trying to force a discussion closed moments after it's been added to does nothing but encourage drama.--Crossmr (talk) 01:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no need to have drama going on at two places at once. I know you don't like how RfC works, but don't accuse me of any wrongdoing when I have absolutely no involvement in this matter besides moving on the discussion at another venue in which somebody else has already started. –MuZemike 01:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
There. Are you fucking happy, now? –MuZemike 01:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
(EC)The discussion was started at AN/I, not at RfC/U. The RfC/U also has no bearing on whether or not he retains his bit. That's an entirely separate discussion than any outcome at the RfC. If you look at the statements at the top of the RfC, you'll not that that outcome isn't even on the table there. SO forcing the discussion to a place that wasn't setup to handle it is pointless and drama inducing. The discussion surrounding my reasoning for the removal of his bit is a direct result of disruptive behaviour both in bad blocks and page protections. Those things are disruptive and under the purview of AN/I, not RfC/U. This isn't dispute resolution. It's stopping disruption on the encyclopedia.--Crossmr (talk) 01:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
You know what, you folks deal with it, then. I'll be waiting when this continues at ArbCom. –MuZemike 01:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Why are you even listening to him MuZemike? The Community wasn't ready to agree to its own desysop process; if he wants to complain, tell him to go to ArbCom. Don't feed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
And don't make veiled personal attacks. You want to debate the merits of the matter at hand feel free.--Crossmr (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Your understanding of the Community is seriously off key; that you pretend that concern is a personal attack is really quite sad. I think back when it was being discussed, I did support a Community process of desysopping but the Community did not come to a consensus so it was not adopted. You're certainly not going to get a block by keeping it at ANI; everyone already knows that. So this brings it back to desysopping...nobody is willing to do so unless there is a process in place, and the fact there is none in force at the moment means that the only body which will desysop is ArbCom. And even that's arguably premature given that you even admit dispute resolution is ongoing (aka RfCU). So...which steward has told you that he'll desysop on the basis of ANI? Or is this just more drama for the sake of drama? I'm honestly looking for an honest answer. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I would concede if you want to archive the upper part of the discussion, but the proposal is fresh. If you want it to go to the archives the proposal could be moved to its own section for discussion.--Crossmr (talk) 01:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
(now that I am "cooled off" a little, btw, one sentence struck above) There probably is not much a point to close only part of the discussion. I mean, Ncmvocalist has a point, though. Calling for a desysop on ANI is akin to calling for a lynch mob (unless that's the point, then I'll stop while ahead). I say that because nobody has ever been desysopped on the account of an ANI straw poll; even if there is a consensus for it, you or someone would end up probably taking it to ArbCom for investigation, anyways. Hence, I personally don't see much of a point in that, either. Anyways, it's not my board, and I suppose one is entitled to waste one's time there, like we all do at one point or another. –MuZemike 01:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

blocking dynamics

I wanted to respond here with a bit more detail. Whenever I block a dynamic IP, I monitor the articles the dynamic has been vandalizing. If I see that the vandalism hops to a related IP, I unblock the original because it obviously is no longer associated with the vandal. With child vandals (like this one), they usually don't know how to change their IP.—Kww(talk) 19:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)