User talk:Brandon/Archive 11

Edward Mc-Millan Scott sockpuppets

Hi Brandon,

Thanks for running the check on the Edward McMillan-Scott socks - I was just wondering about a couple of things - I've put a message up on the COI noticeboard. Did anything come up about user:Xerxes23? I noticed the account isn't listed in the confirmed socks- was it an unrelated account. I also saw user:Redbus09 and user:Wikiprofile2 came up - were they the only socks we didn't manage to find in the report? Just wondering because if the Observer are already onto this, it'd be good to make sure there aren't any other sockpuppets in the woodwork. Many thanks, Hands of gorse, heart of steel (talk) 13:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Skepticfall

It's Strider11. All over the place. Any Pakistani editor on that ISP in that country, with those idiosyncrasies with cats is him, more or less. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 23:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Libs SPI

I just KNOW I'm gonna catch flak for even asking this, but can you clarify your confirmation of Libs as the various accounts? --King Öomie 14:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, here. --King Öomie 14:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

There appears to be quite a bit of shock at the results, which is never good. I'll ask another CU to review my findings. Brandon (talk) 16:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I consulted with another CU, who didn't find the direct link I thought I had saw when I first ran the check. So I went back and rechecked everything and my original findings do still seem correct, albeit with less of a direct connection. Wiki libs and two of the "Australian" users share a common Canadian ISP. All except BC Rocky can be chained to each other via overlapping ISPs. Brandon (talk) 08:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

That ISP has something like an 80% market share in Canada- it can almost be completely discounted. --King Öomie 13:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

When accounts that claim to be in Australia appear on the same range as Wiki libs, with the same user agent as Wiki libs it is more than a coincidence. While the range might have 65k IPs, it houses about 200 users. The chances of two users with the same interests appearing among those 200 is almost 0. When he returns we can see how he explains it, if he claims to have no idea who the other accounts are I will forward my evidence to functionaries-l for review. Brandon (talk) 13:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Also I will update the SPI case later today to better reflect the new evidence. Brandon (talk) 13:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Case updated. The new information might help explain why I'm confident of the connection. Brandon (talk) 22:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Racepacket

Per my request here and recent evidence, I have reason to believe that Baechter is one of Racepacket's associates in real life who he has contacted and used an old Wikipedia account to make his comment at this RFC/U. Based on the evidence you initially found, are Racepacket and Baechter in a geographic proximity to prove meatpuppetry or some sort of collusion?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Both users are in the same geographic area, yes. Brandon (talk) 13:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Close enough that the owners of both accounts might be the same person or that they might be acquaintances in real life?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Same city. Brandon (talk) 22:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that User:Ryulong cited a comment that I left on a RFC/U talk page as "evidence" that User Baechter was somehow involved in improper conduct. The diff Ryulong cites discussed a group of people who I overheard discussing the vandalism of the Dane Rauschenberg article. Contrary to Ryulong's claim, there is no "evidence" that Baechter was involved in editing that article, let alone vandalizing it. I don't know why Ryulong is treating Baechter in such an incivil way, repeatedly reverting his edits, but I leave that matter to Wikipedia management. Racepacket (talk) 01:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

User:CyberGhostface

While both User:DrBat and User:CyberGhostface are requesting block reviews and I agree with the block of DrBat and his sockpuppets based upon the checkuser request, I wonder if you can take another look at User talk:CyberGhostface and the user's contributions. It seems likely to me that this account is maintained by a different editor based on these contributions, and that an unblock might be in order for this particular account. It also seems unlikely that User:CyberGhostface would go to the trouble of notifying the arbitration committee of a valid secondary account and then use other sockpuppets in a disruptive manner. If you're amenable, I think a lifting or reduction of the block might be profitable. I've put the request on hold for now. Dekimasuよ! 00:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

If you have time

Per a previous message I left here, please see WP:AN#Requesting input on block review. Dekimasuよ! 11:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Replied there. Brandon (talk) 23:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Question regarding deletion of the article "Weiss Research Inc"

Hi Brandon, "Weiss Research" article was deleted in September and the reason for deletion was provided as shown below: (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup).

I would like to bring the article back up on wikipedia, of course only after your approval. Could you please provide assistance regarding why the article was deleted in first place and how it can be improved.

Looking forward for your feedback!

Thanks!

Natalie McPeek (talk) 22:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Natalie McPeek

The article was created by a spammer, as such I will not be restoring it. However feel free to write your own version. Brandon (talk) 02:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for replying back! Natalie McPeek (talk) 12:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)Natalie McPeek

Block of 83.76.128.0/17

Why did you block this range infinite? Those are dynamic IPs owned by the biggest swiss provider. I couldn't edit with my previous IP, stating this was caused by this block. --81.62.202.33 (talk) 05:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The range was blocked being used for creating many accounts that had to be locked. The indefinite block was a mistake. I've unblocked, hopefully the vandal doesn't return. Brandon (talk) 23:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

MC10 sockpuppet tags

Re Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MC10/Archive. The sockpuppets were duly tagged Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of MC10. User:MC10 then removed those tags; User:VegaDark then deleted the category. I've asked VegaDark about the category deletion, and reverted MC10's tag removals. You may want to protect the userpages. Also please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Alex_Ji_LT-21, which may be yet more MC10 activity. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 10:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The abusive sock master is apparently MC10's brother or some such. Should be fine to move the socks over to the other category as Vega has done. Brandon (talk) 23:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

OTRS permission

Hello. If you have a moment, could you please check this file's OTRS template to make sure the ticket number actually goes to that file? Thank you.--Rockfang (talk) 17:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like this has been taken care of, sorry for the slow response. Brandon (talk) 23:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

"Pee-Wee Herman" IP

Brandon, is it possible for you to PM me with the IP of that latest idiot? I plan on filing a formal complaint with the provider for ongoing TOS violations. Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Emailed. Brandon (talk) 23:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Umm excuse me...

But could you be more specific on this? [[1]] Of which user?Abce2|This isnot a test 02:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

lolfunk (talk · contribs), which he admitted to on the talk. Brandon (talk) 02:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

User:DrBat

Who do I talk to about User:DrBat? The user has been in contact with me and is prepared to enter into probation. The user also points to an inconsistency regarding their treatment and that of User:Asgardian, who filed the sock puppet report but who has also sock-puppeted, to evade an arbitration ban and who was not blocked indefinitely. Would it be acceptable to reduce the block to one month, myself, or do arb-com need to be consulted? Hiding T 14:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Eh, should be fine to reduce the block. As for the inconsistency it would be best to file a SPI on Asgardian with DrBat's evidence. Brandon (talk) 23:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Carcharoth mentioned that arb-com were looking at the block of DrBat so I've run the situation past them. The Asgardian situation is from over a year ago, the sock-puppetry was confirmed but Asgardian was only blocked for a limited time rather than indefinitely. While it might prove beneficial to file a new SPI against Asgardian, I think at the minute it would just be fishing. I'll have to check. Hiding T 14:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Just by the by, it is possible everyone missed this: [2]. If it isn't DrBat, fine. The timing, however, was convenient. Over to you. Regards. Asgardian (talk) 00:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

It is him, yes. Brandon (talk) 00:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't feel any better for knowing that. I'm guessing that mean a reduction of his block is now out of the question as it came after the fact. Regards. Asgardian (talk) 01:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Brandon. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Adam2893.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

MuZemike 03:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Replied there. Brandon (talk) 02:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Ping

Hello Brandon. When you have time can you see at this, please? Thanks, --Dferg (talk) 17:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. Brandon (talk) 23:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks. Regards, --Dferg (talk) 23:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

fix a SPI case?

You wrote "nothing of vote", can you change it to "nothing of note"? It took me excess CPU cycles to figure out what you meant, since "vote" is also a common word on Wikipedia. I know, it's minor.. tedder (talk) 00:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The keys are right next to each other! Sort of... Sorry about that. Brandon (talk) 00:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Heh, no worries. My OCPD appreciates it tedder (talk) 00:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations: Aogouguo

Hi. In light of the new developments at List of countries by military expenditures, could you check again the accounts that I suspect to be the sockpuppets of the banned user Aogouguo? The case is here: [3]. I've just added two new IPs that are most likely his: [4]. The article has become absolutely insane since this guy has started using various sockpuppets to edit the article (in a nutshel, he apparently can't stand the fact that France now spends more on its military than the UK... not that anyone would normally care, but apparently that matters a lot to him, almost like hurt national pride or something). Look at the contributions of each account, it's quite obvious (single accounts created in order to make exactly the same edits in exactly the same articles). BlackHaddes's contributions: [5]. Bro5990's contributions: [6]. Guasdiof's contributions: [7]. SuperDan89's contributions: [8]. IP 88.104.227.190's contributions: [9]. 88.104.231.223's contributions: [10]. To be compared with the original banned user Aogouguo's contributions: [11]. Also to be compared with the contributions of all his confirmed socks that were banned a while ago: [12].

Look at these two striking examples for instance:

• Aogouguo's appeal to the editor Jza84 in June 2009: [13] vs. SuperDan89's appeal to (surprise, surprise) the same editor Jza84 two days ago: [14].
• this edit by Aogouguo in the article 'List of countries by military expenditures': [15] and this edit by SuperDan89 in the same article: [16].

The admins really need to end this charade. This guys makes life impossible for faithful editors. I'm forced to report this to you anonymously, because Aougouguo (under his many sockpuppets) harrassed me badly some months ago, so I had to create a new account that I keep away from his view. It's insane that Wikipedia comes to that! 82.124.221.224 (talk) 02:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Wiki libs

I believe you used the wrong template, he was only blocked for a month.--SKATER ^Speak. 12:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Was just about to bring that up, my friend. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 16:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

That would explain why the clerk didn't have it there in the first place. I remove the blocked param. Brandon (talk) 18:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I would dispute the block log message for User:156.34.142.110, "Block evasion". That IP has been extensively self-established by Libs as being used by him, and was only used post-block to edit his own talkpage after the SPI. --King Öomie 13:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Same here. There's no reason to block his IP for three months. It's hardly "block evasion" when he's editing his own talkpage. Block evasion would be if he were editing articles with it. I suggest you reconsider this block. Enigma^msg 17:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

As do I.--SKATER ^Speak. 17:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

BJ, any comment? Enigma^msg 07:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

There is I think some confusion here. I mentioned that IP in passing in my SP report, but it was not listed as a sockpuppet because he had long said that it was him, and he did not, I believe, use it for sockpuppeting. Since it was not used as a sockpuppet, it was not blocked. According to WP:BAN, "Blocked users, including indefinitely blocked users, can usually still edit their talkpage", whether that applies in this case I have no idea - if so it should clearly be that the user that can edit Wiki Libs' talk page is User:Wiki libs, and not some IP-based alter ego. So a one month ban on that IP is definitely correct, whether a 3 month ban for ban evasion is correct I think depends on whether User:Wiki libs is able to edit his own talk page (in which case it is not evasion) or not (in which case it is). Sumbuddi (talk) 06:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The master block did not include a talkpage lockout, which is usually only included if the user has been abusing that page as well. So yes, he was certainly permitted to edit that page. --King Öomie 17:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The block log- the (only) block listed would specifically say "cannot edit own talkpage" if that sanction was in place as well. --King Öomie 17:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

your close as speedy keep

of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Comparison_of_Internet_Relay_Chat_clients i don't think it was appropriate. one day is not enough time to keep an afd open, and i hadn't even voted yet. i was going to vote delete, as i'm sure many others would, as the article is trivial. further, some of the votes for keep were SPAs. please reopen it. Theserialcomma (talk) 18:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

No. Brandon (talk) 20:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

CU knowledge base

Hi Brandon. I saw that you handled the most recent Scibaby CUs. I know that Nishkid64 originally had trouble recognizing Scibaby, though he did a sterling job later on. I wonder: Do Checkusers have a database with virtual fingerprints of repeated offenders? If not, this might be a useful shared resource (obviously kept in a secure location). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

We have a few makeshift ways of sharing information (CheckUser-l, IRC, private emails) but nothing formal. In cases like Scibaby we are only keeping the data private as to not show our hand, privacy is irrelevant. Brandon (talk) 20:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Scott Free

Hi, aren't you supposed to use a template when you block a user as per above - and explain why? I have quried this action at [17] Jezhotwells (talk) 00:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Please see my response on the AN/I thread. Thanks! BOZ (talk) 01:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Block reduced to 48 hours. Brandon (talk) 01:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems fair; thanks for your consideration. BOZ (talk) 01:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

weiss research

Hi Brandon, I have posted a revised article on my talk page. Please review and provide your feedback.

Weiss group owns a management firm, educational facility (School), and has over 500,000 readers subscribed.

Here is a link to their website. http://www.weissgroupinc.com/index.html

Let me know if you need more information. I would like to post the article to wikipedia if satifies the notability criteria.

Thanks!

Natalie McPeek (talk) 21:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC) Natalie

Unblock request of Scott Free

Hello Brandon. Scott Free (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · 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, NW (Talk) 20:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

User: DrBat

Greetings Brandon. I'm guessing this user isn't going to be unblocked anytime soon, but wanted to flag this latest quirk with someone. Ghidorah suddenly appeared on the 8th November and made a flurry of edits, including a mass reversion on the article Juggernaut, complete with a familiar and tell-tale comment: [18]. You've already confirmed he has tried to evade the block [19], so if there's a pattern I'll let you know. Regards. Asgardian (talk) 04:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Further to this, the user has made repeated reversions. The language used by the user is very basic - it is either a cover or a very young user who doesn't understand Wikipedia : [20] Regards Asgardian (talk) 10:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

you havent been on the internet a lot if you think everyone who types informally is a kid.

and you keep reverting my edits as well Ghidorah (talk) 10:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you help me out on this one, sir? Regards Asgardian (talk) 10:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Ghidorah isn't DrBat. Brandon (talk) 05:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Then it is another factor. Regards Asgardian (talk) 07:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Unblock request from a rangeblock

User_talk:71.80.169.175. Black Kite 20:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, replied there. Brandon (talk) 05:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ItsLassieTime

Your clarification on this Checkuser result[21] would be appreciated since WP:DUCK test and some queries come forward.[22]. Thanks.--Caspian blue 04:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Both users appear to be in different parts of the country according technical evidence. I didn't look at any behavioral evidence. Brandon (talk) 05:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Please redirect sock talks

You tagged User:Smokey joes cafe with a sock tag. FYI, WP:SOCK specifies redirecting the confirmed socks' talk pages to the userpages. Only the puppetmaster's talk page gets tagged and even that is under discussion at WT:SPI.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

World_Tour_&_Other_Destinations

Hi Brandon,

Your BJBot marked the file File:Tsunami- World Tour & other Destinations.jpg (as used on the page World_Tour_&_Other_Destinations) for deletion, under the illusion that the image was orphaned.
Actually, someone had put an erroneous redirect on the page, but you can't expect a Bot to be intelligent enough to solve a problem, can you? You may add it back if you think that that will be useful, try to have it undeleted perhaps, or just leave it as it is?
Kind Regards, MuteJoe (talk) 16:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Restored. Brandon (talk) 02:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Islanders27

You can probably delete this image as well since it seems to be a top image for his user space as well as this subpage.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 02:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleted, thanks. Brandon (talk) 03:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Digwuren CU results

Can you give us at least some information about Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Digwuren results? Why did you not make the results public but sent them to ArbCom? Offliner (talk) 10:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The results may affect the outcome of an active ArbCom case and the committee has more information on the user than I do. Myself or another CU will post the results in a few days. Brandon (talk) 11:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Brandon, did you see the latest comments on the SPI page. --Martin (talk) 18:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes I have. My findings are almost entirely unrelated to the evidence provided (which was largely stale and not actionable) nor are they very interesting. Brandon (talk) 19:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I see that User:Põhja Konn is listed as a suspected sock puppet. He was accused of this before by Offliner and he said he was willing to verify his real identity to an ArbCom member, so you may want to pass that on to ArbCom too. --Martin (talk) 20:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I did not find that user to be related to Digwuren. Brandon (talk) 20:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

You may want to mention that in the CU comments section of the SPI page, to clear up any ambiguity in that regard. --Martin (talk) 21:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Did you find that this user was related to any other user besides Digwuren? Thanks, Triplestop x3 23:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

SPI case updated, nothing to see here, everybody calm down. :) Brandon (talk) 02:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding a sock

Hey there. I made a case here, where you blocked the socks that turned up from checkuser, but forgot to actually block the sockpuppet that I reported. If you have a minute, take a look at it. Cheers. :-) Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 18:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I just reported the CU results, User:PeterSymonds did the blocking. Brandon (talk) 21:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Still open?

This SPI case [23] still seems to be open. The complaint was filed by User:Termer: it's already his third one against me this week, even though I've made a point of not interacting with him since the start of his harrassment campaign. As User:Henrik wrote on his talk page [24]:

In the last few days you've created three different complaints about the same user (here, here and here). This is starting to approach vexatious litigation and is obvious battleground activity, and further erodes any remnants of good faith that may still exist. I suggest you redirect your attention elsewhere and have as little further contact with User:Anti-Nationalist as possible for a while. This is not (yet) a binding remedy per WP:DIGWUREN, and I sincerely hope one won't be necessary and that this note is sufficient.

I should say that I was not even notified by the user requesting the SPI, and the case was opened without my knowledge. (I was since alerted to it by User:Russavia, who notified me on talk about this latest crusade.)

As you've now written that "What little technical evidence makes this seem Unlikely" shouldn't this be closed by this point? Should I even respond? I've never been anybody's sockpuppet and the idea of me being RJ CG because of similar opposition to Termer's behavior on certain articles strikes me as ludicrous beyond belief. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 22:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

User:ItsLassieTime

I take it that user was engaged in additional sockpuppetry since the original ban was issued back in the spring? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Here and here. Brandon (talk) 07:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Ugh. Thanks for the update. It strikes me now, as it did in April, that that guy wants desperately to edit, but is unwilling to do things the right way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Also [25] [26] and [27] --Tothwolf (talk) 08:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

ILT was banned not just for relentless socking, but also for using those socks to help push its own articles to GA status. I'm inclined to agree with Wknight94 that all those articles should either be zapped outright, or quarantined to be thoroughly examined, as their mere existence is a mockery of the banning process. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to correct the above on one point if I may: socking wasn't used to push their articles to GA status; as due diligence, multiple GA peeps checked & confirmed all reviewers were unrelated editors in good standing and without previous involvement in the articles at the time (here). I'm most certainly not waving banned user pompoms, and agree lack of problems there doesn't excuse conduct issues elsewhere. Thanks. –Whitehorse1 17:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

As I recall from the April discussion, there was at least suspicions that socks were used to help achieve GA status. The user seemed obsessed with ahcieving GA's, as if they actually meant something. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

As I recall from having read the discussions recently, the suspicions were based on the reasonable logic of "they told untruths about links between their accounts, so could they also have used their accounts untruthfully to aid attaining GA status?". Thorough checking thankfully confirmed the suspicion unfounded. –Whitehorse1 17:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

My own concern was that all of the articles ILT made significant contributions to needed to be verified (ILT's own article creations or otherwise). As I understand it, there are a number of editors working on verifying the identified articles, although I've not had time to keep up with it at present. --Tothwolf (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Meetup

Hey.. do you know for sure if you're coming to the meetup? So far it's only you and I signed up, and I don't want to go downtown if no one is going to show. Have you heard back from Dominic at all? --Spike Wilbury (talk) 16:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

He said he might be able to make it, if it is just us three it might be easier to have it in Scottsdale (I think that is where you are?). Brandon (talk) 16:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

You all need to send out an announcement to talk pages of people in the area. That's how you get participation. More than happy to help if you have a message and category you want to hit. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I'm for Scottsdale in that case. I work near Scottsdale/Shea. MZMcBride: we did sign up for a geonotice [28]. I think the low participation is because we planned it for a weeknight due to all the holidays. We'll plan a bigger weekend meetup after the new year. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 17:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Desiphral

Hi, I would just like to inform you of the above SPI. The new batch of socks spammed a couple of articles and some domains. Triplestop x3 02:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I got beat to the CU, I'll go clean up after him (again). Brandon (talk) 03:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

And done. Brandon (talk) 03:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Brandon. Hopefully this will send the message that paying people to spam is not ok. Triplestop x3 03:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for handling this all so quickly. ThemFromSpace 03:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I have a little special place in my heart for Desiphral after the bullshit he pulled last time. :) Brandon (talk) 03:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe McElderry

I believe you closed this AfD as redirect absolutely correctly, but also that the subject now meets inclusion criteria. Consequently I have asked for a new community opinion at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_December_6. I42 (talk) 20:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jacob Peters

If you could comment there, that would be great. Cheers, NW (Talk) 21:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

E-mail

I've sent one. Best. Acalamari 16:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Deleted articles

Hi Brandon,

I stumbled upon Ocean Village, Gibraltar and Marina Bay, Gibraltar yesterday and was looking forward to copyediting/expanding them only to find they have been deleted with no prior warning...

Would it be possible to restore them in my userpage so I can still do so? Thanks and regards, --Gibmetal 77^talk 07:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Why are All Users on Stony Brook University Campus Banned from Wikipedia?

Brandon, can you tell me why you have banned all users on Stony Brook University from editing on Wikipedia? Any user whether registered or not is banned from any computer that uses the Stony Brook University network? Maybe you could explain to me why if I am on campus, and logged in as a registered user, I am banned from editing as is anyone else on campus? Additionally, all IP addresses from any public computers are banned, apparently permanently. Is that just an administrative faux pas or are we simply banning 25,000 people at a clip? It would seem to defeat the purpose of Wikipedia... Stevenmitchell (talk) 16:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

As with most school blocks, the answer is "Ridiculous, endless vandalism". Not sure why it's not only an IP rangeblock, though. There should certainly be a registration exemption. Maybe an oversight? --King Öomie 17:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

If I recall correctly the only was the entire school could be blocked is very poor network design as I only blocked a single IP, which was being used for abusive sock puppeting. It was a while ago and the only IP range I can find via whois isn't the one I blocked, would it be possible to provide the blocked IP? Brandon (talk) 17:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Tayzen/Desiphral again

See [29] and Innova Web Design. Is the article promotional enough for an A7/G11, or should it go to AfD? ThemFromSpace 04:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Deleted, some overlap on articles edited between the last account too. Brandon (talk) 05:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I saw you just took care of this. Thanks! ThemFromSpace 22:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Round three

Sorry to keep bugging you, but this just came in. See User:zannenFL/gpEasy (draft) and [30]. The link between the project creator "oyejorge" and the page in question can be found here. Is that good enough for a speedy? ThemFromSpace 12:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Deleted and blocked. This really isn't a CSD issue, his accounts should be blocked on sight along with the article creation and link spam removed. Brandon (talk) 19:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I forgot he was actually banned. All his stuff can be tagged CSD G5. Brandon (talk) 03:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Deleted articles

Hi Brandon,

I stumbled upon Ocean Village, Gibraltar and Marina Bay, Gibraltar yesterday and was looking forward to copyediting/expanding them only to find they have been deleted with no prior warning...

Would it be possible to restore them in my userpage so I can still do so? Thanks and regards, --Gibmetal 77^talk 03:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Our mutual friend 62.149.141.145

I think you need to block 62.149.141.145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with email restricted and protect his user talk page. He's still going. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Now dealt with - sorry to bother you. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Beat to the punch, it is User:Wikinger if you are curious. Brandon (talk) 00:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again

I assume you don't want to be bugged every time Desiphral creates a new article, because it doesn't look like he's stopping. I took the liberty of tagging this one (which is the same as one from earlier) as G5 and creating an SPI report. For future information, is there anything else I should do when handling his articles? ThemFromSpace 19:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Article deleted, user blocked, CU results posted at the case page. Brandon (talk) 20:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Tropical Financial

Hi Brandon. You recently speedily deleted Tropical Financial Credit Union under G11. I found the article to be definitely worthy of an {{advert}} tag, but I don't concur that it should have been speedily deleted. I'd like to try to improve it since I believe the organization is worthy of an article here. What do you think? Gobonobo ^{T C} 03:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

G11 speedies

I have restored a lot of articles you deleted today as "G11 advertising". Some were neutral articles about companies with perhaps dubious notability, some where articles with a long history where many versions were not promotional at all (e.g. most of the article was a "controversy" section), and most were extremely neutral new articles on comics without a word of promotion in them. Please be much more careful when speedying articles for being promotional. Fram (talk) 07:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Season's greetings

Thank you for being one of the people who has made 2009 such an interesting and enlightening year for me. It has certainly had its challenges, but also many highlights. I wish you peace and contentment in 2010, and a joyous holiday season to you and yours. In honour of the season, I hope you will enjoy a little musical token. Your choice: traditional or cheeky. Best, Risker (talk) 02:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Best Wishes for 2010, FloNight♥♥♥♥ 13:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Non-free images check

Brandon, whenever you get back, I'm not sure if you still use your bot but is it possible to check User:Mcenroeucsb/Sandbox and clean out all the non-free images? I've already seen a few but I'm not hot to check them all. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Revive The World Cafe?

I was looking for information on World Cafe community discussion process and found that it had been deleted. I do not have any experience with it but ran into it on the web and it seemed interesting - definitely notable from my perspective - and I was disappointed that WP didn't have anything on it. Would it be possible for me to have access to the deleted page in a sandbox or subdirectory on my user page? Then I can try to make it WP-ready. Jojalozzo (talk) 21:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

World Cafe? Brandon (talk) 00:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Oops. My bad. I meant The World Cafe! Jojalozzo (talk)

Restored to User:Sreed888/The World Cafe. Brandon (talk) 01:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Response & appeal re: deletions

To: User talk:Brandon

On Feb. 5, you replied: Paid editing? Brandon (talk) 05:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I’ve posted my appeal to you asking that you please restore the articles [Charis Michelsen], {Victoria Pynchon] and [Jeffrey Steinberger] that you deleted for “Unambiguous advertising or promotion” so that I can rewrite them with NPOV. All are notable.

I replied to your question, and I do it again here: No. My articles are not “paid editing.” I have been editing on Wikipedia off and on for a while now. I am not connected to any group or individuals that pay for edits. My understanding of Wikipedia has always been that encyclopedic editing is voluntary and an individual thing. I don’t know what else I can say to you. I'm fascinated with the legal system, criminology, entertainment and the arts, which is what I typically edit. I’m at a loss as to what to do next. I promise to improve these articles and get them up to Wikipedia standards. Since your deletions, I’ve been doing some small Wikipedia edits and have only posted one new article about a former national gossip columnist and magazine editor who is now doing time in a federal penitentiary.

Thank you for your careful consideration and once again for your time. I look forward to your reply.--AuthorAuthor (talk) 05:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

FYI. AuthorAuthor has fileda request for undeletion at Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Current_requests#Victoria_Pynchon.2C_Charis_Michelsen.2C_Jeffrey_Steinberger. If - also in light of above - you see a problem with userfication, now would be a god moment to clarify. Tikiwont (talk) 20:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)