User talk:MegaMan1988

Mage Resu, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Mage Resu! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like ChamithN (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Block If You Want To

You wanna block me, block me! I won't stop you because I'm not going to stop! I know it's you, Weweremarshall! What you're doing is vandalism! Buncoko (talk) 00:33, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope! Lol! Your grammar and punctuation were off, BTW! Mage Resu (talk) 00:42, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Xboxmanwar

Users are allowed to remove messages and warnings from their own talk pages, per WP:OWNTALK. I see that Xboxmanwar quoted the relevant guideline to you in an edit summary and you still undid his edit. I skimmed your recent contributions and I also see you following Xboxmanwar around to different pages and reverting him. I am asking you to cease this behavior immediately, or you will be blocked from editing. If you have a content dispute with Xboxmanwar, follow the steps at WP:DR. Otherwise, stop hounding him. --Laser brain (talk) 00:55, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Laser brain (talk) 01:05, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

False accusation. Please investigate.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

MegaMan1988 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I believe a mistake has been made. Weweremarshall is not a sockpuppet! I would like to dispute this accusation, as I am doing in the conversation below. Mage Resu (talk) 01:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

On further investigation, I don't believe it's as clear as I originally thought that you are abusing multiple accounts. If the suspicious behavior (including ganging up on other editors with multiple accounts) continues, I will file a sockpuppet investigation and your accounts will be checked for technical similarities. I also expect you to stop creating disruptive user pages, cease personal attacks of other editors, and cease edit warring. Laser brain (talk) 14:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So aside from the fact that your accounts were registered around the same time, have the same editing style, same rhetorical style, and same editing interests, what facts should we be looking at? I've read DBQ. Have you read WP:DUCK? --Laser brain (talk) 02:28, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. Weweremarshall seems to be interested in Song/Songwriter articles, whereas my wiki habits are constantly refreshing WP:AIV and reverting vandalism from all kinds of pages. I also make minor fixes on chemistry articles, since I read them frequently. Close, but no cigar. Mage Resu (talk) 02:46, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, I have read WP:DUCK! Mage Resu (talk) 02:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And our activity periods don't quite line up! Mage Resu (talk) 04:03, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...because you're the same user. --Laser brain (talk) 04:07, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is that there are times when neither of us were active, times when both of us were active, and times when only one of us was active. These times don't seem to follow any suspicious pattern. Mage Resu (talk) 04:10, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More evidence against the accusation. See this and this! I was improving my user page while WWM was editing his sandbox. Notice that there is overlap between the activity periods. Mage Resu (talk) 22:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to ask, but are we sure of this? The behaviour relating to Xboxmanwas was unacceptable but seemed to only be MegaMan1988. While the time of creation is suspicious, and there is a suspicious similar interest in rapper related articles and I haven't looked that well at the language, it does seem that Weweremarshall is mostly editing articles related to rappers, wrestling and Broad City; MegaMan1988 ‎only seems to have the rapper stuff and does a fair amount of RVVs and other gnomish edits (although I recognise that's commonly used by sleepers to try and avoid suspicion). Having said that, I can't see deleted edits and I'm particularly wondering what [1] is about as I'm not seeing any interaction before this so I'm wondering the reason for this attack page created by the edit's "brother". (Frankly looking a lemondoge's edits to 29 March, I'm surprised anyone would have a reason to attack them.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nil Einne: I'm going to unblock the Weweremarshall because, on further reflection, there are enough uncertainties that I would want a CheckUser. I believe the Lemondoge account may be somehow related to this one, because their editing doesn't seem to intersect at all. Both Lemondoge and MegaMan1988 have created pages of markup designed to create annoying and disruptive displays on the user's browser (like garbage characters covering your entire menu, or repeated nonsense words going diagonally across your screen). Lemondoge created one which was deleted, and then MegaMan1988 created a page with code referring to Lemondoge which was also deleted. I get a strong sense of kids bored for the summer. --Laser brain (talk) 14:34, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And about Xboxmanwar

When I saw Xboxmanwar on WP:AIV, I kind of went into "blindly revert all edits" mode. Looking back at my contributions, I realized that what I was doing was wrong! Sorry for all the trouble! I'll try and remember to think before I revert in the future. Mage Resu (talk) 02:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And about Mage Resu

Since I sign as Mage Resu, I created this account and redirected it's user and talk pages to my main account to avoid impersonation/confusion. Is it possible that you could change the one week hard block to an indefinite soft block? I am currently being affected by the autoblock for that. Thank you. Mage Resu (talk) 16:01, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Using other wifi temporarily. Please lift autoblock on home IP, though! Mage Resu (talk) 19:05, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination

Why did you nominate User talk:X. McDonald for speedy deletion? -- GB fan 01:14, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per this discussion. Mage Resu (talk) 01:18, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing to that. In the future if you nominate a page for deletion like that you should point to that somewhere the admin can see. If you don't it may get declined like I did because the admin may not know about that decision. -- GB fan 09:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

About the User:79.167.173.201

I advert you that this user reverts you in the Euroleague article using the Basque&Roll (talk · contribs) account. I think that it uses the sockpuppet to continue the edit war, it not have the purpose to talk about this and it will continue the edit war. I believe that this edit war must end as soon as possible.

Guilty.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

MegaMan1988 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

<gulp> WP:STANDARDOFFER? Mage Resu (talk) 03:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I think you missed the "six months" part in WP:STANDARDOFFER. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@Ohnoitsjamie: @Bbb23: Sorry. I didn't miss the six months part. My intention was to to ask you if there was anything else I needed to know prior to taking up the standard offer and disappearing for six months. I should have been more clear about that. Also, User:Mage Resu is not a sockpuppet. A while ago, I decided to take on the pseudonym "Mage Resu", but was unsure about whether or not I wanted to keep it. I created the account Mage Resu to avoid impersonation while I was considering the name change. I asked PhilKnight to soft block the account indefinitely, which he did. Might I request that you remove the sock tag and reinstate the redirect to my main account? Thank you and goodbye for 6 months! Mage Resu (talk) 16:54, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apology and unblock request.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

MegaMan1988 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Sorry about socking and causing trouble the other day. I promise not to do it again, should I ever be unblocked. Is there a way I could have a second chance? Mage Resu (talk) 20:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
P.S: There's a comment above this unblock request that hasn't been answered yet? Could you get that too, perhaps? Mage Resu (talk) 20:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

With the above comment "goodbye for six months" - I think you realize that getting unblocked after socking isn't going to happen so soon. I've disabled access to your talkpage, when six months is up, please contact WP:UTRS to have it reinstated. SQL ^{Query me!} 21:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Block evasion

Ok I'm just popping by to remind myself that I strongly believe MegaMan1988 to be currently socking here. Same mass blind reverts, same exact way of addressing users with the "Hi!" (I always found this to be a bit condescending imo). The sock account was created around the same time MegaMan1988 was created but remained dormant, and coincidentally became active right around the time MegaMan1988 was blocked. The usage of Twinkle is a new thing, but other than that they behave the same. I was going to take it to SPI but worry I don't have good enough evidence. It's more a gut feeling based on shared habits rather than shared articles. So if MegaMan1988 were to do the standard offer he would need to reset the six month timer from whenever his current sock gets blocked. Sro23 (talk) 15:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I believe this to be the latest account here. That's the third sock account he's created (see User:Jonathan McCarthy and User:TheUltimateScientist) in just two days...wow. Sro23 (talk) 02:56, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Kroshan appears to be the latest sock. It was created around the same time as the previous sock, and has the characteristic long-term abuse interest:[2]. @Laser brain:, what are your thoughts? Sro23 (talk) 03:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sro23: Agreed, and blocked. --Laser brain (talk) 12:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And he's already back socking here: [3], plus other edits. Maybe I should take it to SPI this time, this person seems to have a lot of sleepers ready to use each time a sock gets blocked. Sro23 (talk) 19:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still socking. Been editing via open proxies a lot lately as well. Sro23 (talk)

So I get it! Since our IPs don't match, mine has to be an open proxy. That way your conclusion remains intact. 126.78.77.19 (talk) 00:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting on evidence. 126.78.77.19 (talk) 02:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, MegaMan1988. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]