User talk:Mike V

Welcome to my Talk Page! You can leave me any questions, comments, or suggestions you have on this page — I don't bite! I'll try to reply where the conversation has started. That way it keeps things in one place. If you wish to proceed differently, just leave a note with your response. As always, you can click here to leave me a new message.

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Imveracious

Thanks very much for your assistance here, Mike. I actually had technical follow-up questions but didn't want to clutter the SPI with them. You seem more knowledgeable about the technical aspects than I am. First, could you explain how you can see what ports the IPs use? Second, can you explain the significance of those ports and how you can tell they're "open"? Appreciate it.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I use a program called nmap that performs a portscan. Once a scan on an IP or an IP range is complete, it provides a readout providing the ports that it has detected, the status of the ports (open, filtered, closed) and what kind of port it is (http, https, tcp, ssh, smtp, and a bunch more). If I find a port that's commonly used as a proxy, I'll attempt to access a website through the proxy using the program wget. If I successfully connect and retrieve content, then I know someone can use it to access Wikipedia and it can be blocked. Mike V • Talk 20:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I downloaded Nmap and ran it. Rather spiffy little thing. It showed the open ports. How do you know that a particular port is "commonly used as a proxy"? I glanced at our article about http, and it looked like 80 and 443 were "normal" ports, but I didn't read it carefully. I didn't download wget because I believe it has to be run from a command line prompt (I use Windows 7), and I wasn't keen on that. Is there another way to "connect and retrieve content"?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

When I run checks, the most common proxy ports I see are 80, 443, 1080, and 8080. You'll usually want to keep an eye out for HTTP, HTTPS, or SOCKS ports during your port scan. I do run both nmap and wget as a command line prompt. If that's not for you, you can configure your browser through your preferences to use the proxy IP and port. When you try to access a website be conscious of which websites you try to access, especially if you have a browser that autofills your login credentials. Mike V • Talk 23:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Heh, you're going increasingly over my head. I think I need a whatever for dummies book on these subjects. I'm running nmap as a Windows program; works fine. I'm not sure how to set my browser up the way you suggest (I use the latest version of Firefox) and don't even know what "autofills your login credentials" means. :-) Despite all appearances, I am more technically savvy than the average user, and my brain works like a bit like a computer (small steps), but I know less about http protocols and all the related Internet networking issues.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Ha, trust me, I'm no IT expert. :) I've just spent a bit of time doing some research. Just to let you know, by autofill your credentials it's just when your browser stores your username and password and autofills it for you. It's a handy tool so you don't have to remember every password for every website, but there's a risk if the program autofills this information through a proxy server that you might not trust. On Firefox this setting is accessed through Preferences --> the security tab --> Remember passwords for sites. You can connect to a proxy through Preferences --> Advanced --> Network --> click the settings tab on "Configure how Firefox connects to the Internet --> select manual proxy configuration and enter the proxy settings. Mike V • Talk 00:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Ironically, I used to be in IT but changed careers, and my knowledge is out-dated. The way I use Firefox is it asks me whether I want to remember a password. It will only do so if I say yes. So, now more questions. First, what would I put into the proxy settings on Firefox? When I then use Firefox (temporarily because I want to do this only for this test), will I have to log in to use the proxy? Once I get past that point, am I going to access Wikipedia through the proxy as opposed to logging in as myself? If I can access Wikipedia using the proxy, doesn't that answer the question without actually changing any content? (This would be easier in a synchronous chat than back and forth on a Talk page, but ...) --Bbb23 (talk) 00:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Most of the time you're going to run into a HTTP/HTTPS proxy, so you'll type in the IP address into the HTTP proxy field and select the port number. Unless it's a private proxy server, you shouldn't have to enter any log-in information. If you're able to access a webpage, then it works. You won't have to make any content changes. Mike V • Talk 01:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

You'll be pleased to know I have no more questions right now. I've saved this discussion as a permalink for future reference. Thanks for your patience.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

No problem! If you do have more questions, please don't hesitate to ask. Mike V • Talk 00:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Anonymous user (doubt)

I reported the anonymous user at ANI but no one replied. #Disruptive anonymous user.

What should I do when anon disrupts again? Should I revert IP without warning or should I add the new IP to the ANI report? SLBedit (talk) 17:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Depending on how the user is being disruptive, it might be best to report the IP to the Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, for instance. It seems that a number of the IPs you've listed have not made an edit for months, so it's unlikely they will be blocked right now. Mike V • Talk 17:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

User is back with a new IP 81.193.35.193 (talk · contribs). I didn't ask to block the old IPs, I listed them because they are evidence. SLBedit (talk) 18:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

In your ANI report, you'll need to do more than just list the IPs. You have to provide diffs that clearly show that it's the same person and that it's not just two people with similar interests. Mike V • Talk 19:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I will. SLBedit (talk) 20:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The IP insulted me in this edit summary. Now what? SLBedit (talk) 00:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for 24 hours. Mike V • Talk 00:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

He is back to insults 85.243.156.131 (talk · contribs). SLBedit (talk) 01:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Tesd52 (talk · contribs) is reverting me at F.C. Porto, saying that I can't edit the article. With this edit it seems that Tesd52 is the same user (also writing in Portuguese and attacking me).

"Por acaso não gosto desta vírgula e outra coisa tu podes fazer as edições que quiseres mas vais ter de levar connosco, já começa a ser demais..." translation: "I don't like that comma and another thing you can make all the edits you want but you will have to "confront" us, it's too much already..."

"chora e faz queixa vê la se eu me ralo, se eu quisesse já te tinha lixado meia página do Benfica e nunca o fiz por respeito ao trabalho dos outros." translation: "Cry and complain I don't care, if I wanted I had ruined/vandalized (you) half of Benfica article and I never did that for respect torwards other people's work".

Basically he is threatening me for editing his club's article because I am a supporter of Benfica. SLBedit (talk) 02:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

First I didn't threat nobody and second if I based my interpretations on you being a supporter of Benfica I wouldn't have mentioned the respect for other people's work, and that's exactly want you don't do, you have received complaints from some users because you are trying to dictate what pages should look like according to your own personal tastes. Tesd52 (talk) 03:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

That's curious because that's exactly what you are doing. You can clear you talk page but the warnings were already given. SLBedit (talk) 03:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

User insulted us in its talk page. SLBedit (talk) 03:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

85.243.156.131 (talk · contribs) is back, trolling Talk:2014–15 S.L. Benfica season while pretending to help. SLBedit (talk) 00:34, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

89.152.188.132 (talk · contribs) is back to harassment. SLBedit (talk) 20:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

IP is back disrupting 2014–15 S.L. Benfica season: 85.243.159.176 (talk · contribs) SLBedit (talk) 17:33, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

SPI Clerk

Hi! I applied to be a SPI clerk at Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerks. I did not receive any answer in more than a month. Today, you removed my application (diff), with an edit summary "users have been offered to take part in the next round of training". I don't see any such offer. Where is it? Vanjagenije (talk) 18:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Uh, I found it! It's at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerk training/January 2015. Sorry. I just wasn't informed about the training. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I had hoped that the pings would have worked. We're just having interested trainees reaffirm their interest and then we'll get the ball rolling right away. Mike V • Talk 18:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jimi Lewis/Archive

Delgada1975 did its same pattern on his previous account Cal 505, as did on Give a Little More. 115.164.55.96 (talk) 23:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Help with Sockpuppet Investigation

Hey, I wanted to ask your help as you have more experience with SPI than I, and also because you endorsed the checkuser at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WritersCraftHNU/Archive. The checkuser found the accounts unrelated, however, I think this may be some type of sock farm, all editing from different locations for the same purpose, and the behavior seems to show that. Also, once the SPI was closed, another new user Luckyjeane voted at the AfD Using the same style and wording, and I think is yet another sock. I just wanted to know if there is anything I can do as far as a behavioral investigation, this can't just be a coincidence that shortly after this article is created a slew of new users come to it's defense, especially regarding a relatively unknown person. Would you recommend I open a new SPI with this new user, or take no action, just wanted to get some input as I'm not really sure what to do next, but still think this should be looked at. Thanks for any help. -War wizard90 (talk) 02:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Gabriella~four.3-6 again

Hey Mike, another incarnation of the New Jersey Gabriella Comito virus Gabriella~four.3-6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) can be found in these edits. Gabby Comito (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Steven Paul Fisher#Colorado poetry fellowship

You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Steven Paul Fisher#Colorado poetry fellowship. Thanks. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)Template:Z48

• Hi, Mike. Can you, please, take a look at the above-mentioned talk page discussion? User Steven Paul Fisher created large number of articles all of which are copy-pasted from scientific articles previously wrote and published by himself. He claims that he discussed the issue with you via e-mail and that you explained him that he has to send a permission letter to the OTRS team with permissions for every single source he used. He also claims that he did send the permission. I added {{OTRS pending}} tag to all the articles he created to keep them from being speedily deleted. I also noticed that you tagged some of his articles with "permission received" (like this one), but not the others. What does this mean? Did he send permissions only for some sources, but not for others? Should we delete other articles as copyvio or should we tell the user to send permissions for all sources? He keeps adding new articles continuously. He also tries to tag those articles with "permission received" tag himself, although he is doing it wrong way (diff). Anyway, it is not him who should confirm that the permission is received, but an OTRS team member. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, He's released all of the articles found in the database under the appropriate license, so I've informed him that he can add the permission notice only for articles that have been derived from there. I was the OTRS agent who worked with him to set that up. If I missed tagging some articles, it's likely just an oversight on my behalf. It would be nice to let him know about the template issue so that we don't have to fix it for every article. Mike V • Talk 20:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Md iet sockpuppets causing disruptive behaviour and wasting admin time

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Md_iet

I see very few responses even though the other user occultzone has also reported a sockpuppet with ip addresss starting from 106.215 who is disrpting all bohra articles , this sincle person has a big list of socks reported , I request that urgent action be taken against this user who does no abide by any wiki rules and props up even though he is banned.The best solution is to ban this ip range from dawoodi bohra articles or all wikiSummichum (talk) 14:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

That K-pop link

Did you see the site? It's pretty distasteful, and that wasn't the first time. Poor Shinyang is about to give up on Wikipedia altogether. You've been active in the Vgleer archive (as has Materialscientist...) so I assume you are aware of how bad this can get. Anyway, I appreciate the help; I am beginning to think that if the WMF doesn't take any action this is just going to get more disgusting. Drmies (talk) 22:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello

I just found out that you are not supposed to have two accounts on wikipedia, well I have another one.But I haven't made any disruptive edits.I just don't want to get blocked.Malam kanam 2003 (talk) 08:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

You have many more than "another one" as the SPI will show. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 08:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Colorado

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 04:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Plasma (physics)

How about this one? --George Ho (talk) 04:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

University of Denver contributor

Hi Mike - are you able to access my Wiki e-mail? If you look at Colorado Poetry Fellowship there is a long thread that includes you.

Steve Fisher in Denver — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.253.229.146 (talk) 15:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Steve,

I just replied to your email. Mike V • Talk 19:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Demeritus

I created a SPI for this user but I must have done something wrong or forgot to add information because it does not show up in the list of SPI cases on the main SPI page.

May I ask you to check what is wrong and edit what I did so it will be on SPI main page?

Thanks for your help! ArtemisOfMars (talk) 21:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

All fixed. Mike V • Talk 22:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Possible SPI Clerk

Hello Mike V, for the past couple of months I've been seeing the big backlogs that regularly happen at SPI. As you can already see from my editing history and experience, I've filed numerous cases (where I did the main SPI investigations all by myself), most of them which have led to the findings of various sockpuppets and I can easily list all those cases. SPI is one my best administrative areas of Wikipedia where I really like and enjoy working the most. Also I just saw a training page which will be used for recruiting new SPI clerks. If you could suggest me, then I can happily add my name to the clerk's noticeboard and I'm sure everyone at the team would be happy to receive that extra help from me. Regards. TheGeneralUser (talk) 22:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I've sent an email out to the other clerks to figure a few things out about the training. I'll keep you updated. Mike V • Talk 22:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

md iet sock ruksaba causing disruption on my talk page

please see the last entry here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Md_iet

the case is pending since many days, I suggest that this entire ip range be blocked 106.215.x.x as this sock is creating user accounts as soon as the sock is caught\blocked.Summichum (talk) 05:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Walter O'Brien

As someone who has been active on the talk page, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter O'Brien. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

162.119.0.0/16

See Wikipedia:WikiProject_on_open_proxies/Requests#162.119.240.70. This is most likely not a proxy range, and it is a busy range, as I see from CU data. I don't know your reasons for one-year anonblock, thus just leaving a note. Materialscientist (talk) 23:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I contacted zzuuzz via email to figure things out, but I did not receive a response. I thought that I was able to access the HTTPS (443) port but if you've checked the range as well, I'll take your word for it. I've gone ahead and unblocked the range. Mike V • Talk 00:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Heads up

Someones impersonating salvadrin! (I think thats what their name is spelled??) again and is blanking user talk pages Saturn star (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Yep, it's a long term abuse user. I'll coordinate with the stewards to lock the accounts. Mike V • Talk 23:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ulichar/Archive

Hi Mike, when you have some time - and if you're willing (if you're not, I understand) - could you take a look at the last report in this archive? The master has made an unblock request and some of his arguments are persuasive. I'm not keen on unblocking him, though, without further input. If you don't have time, let me know, and I'll go pester someone else. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 02:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I didn't see much behavioral evidence connecting Ulichar to the other accounts, so unless there was more evidence I'd be more likely to favor granting the unblock request. As always, you can apply the [WP:ROPE|rope]] philosophy. In addition, the CU results was only a possible. Though if there was more evidence I would be interested in seeing that, as I don't want to suggest you should unblock the account if the behavioral evidence is quite clear. Mike V • Talk 04:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

If it weren't for how disruptive he is elsewhere (he's been quite polite on his Talk page), it wouldn't bother me so much, but that's not really fair to use the possible sock puppetry as a proxy for sanctioning him for disruption. I'm going to unblock him. Thanks very much for looking at it.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

EF Disabled

Special:AbuseFilter/621, no hits in 5 months--if I'm missing something feel free to revert. The overall EF match limit is getting high. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Category:Nigerian epic films

Hello,

Kindly undelete this category - Category:Nigerian epic films; as it already has a film grouped in it. Thanks.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 16:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Bull of Heaven#Genres

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Bull of Heaven#Genres. Thanks. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 11:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)Template:Z48 Thank you. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 11:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

162.119.231.132 not an open proxy? Used by lta Ararat Arev today

This edit[1] is just one of many similar edits made by various IPs, all of whom I and others believe to be Ararat Arev. 71.177.17.55 (talk · contribs) is a another IP he used. Dougweller (talk) 11:37, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, Mike V. 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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Regards, Manul ~ talk 13:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Somerset Trust Company

Hello Mike V,

I recently submitted an article that you deleted, and you cited that it was deleted for copyright infringement...however, I had nearly every sentence cited. You cited the bank's website "https://www.somersettrust.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=BankHistory" However, I cited this multiple times.

Also, all the work I put in is now gone completely. It took me a long time to put that all together...is there anyway I can get the article back, and fix whatever it is you saw wrong? I value your input, and am very interested in getting a page for Somerset Trust. Was there anything else you saw in the article that would prevent it from being posted?

Thanks for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.35.220.46 (talk) 19:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, even if you cite the page it is still copyright infringement because you used the exact same wording as on the website. I regret that I can't provide a copy of the article. I would encourage you to read our page about [Wikipedia:Copyright violations|copyright violations]] for further information. Best, Mike V • Talk 20:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Mike, I appreciate the help. I will read through that. D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.35.220.46 (talk) 12:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

New sock

Hi Mike: New Gabby Comito sock [2]. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Full protection needed again at Dorje Shugden controversy

Full protection needed again at Dorje Shugden controversyVictoriaGrayson^Talk 03:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Andrew lingen-stallard

As User:Andrew lingen-stallard's only surviving edits were an autobiographical user page, that page should probably be blanked (per CSD G11), apart from the death notice. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

How to relist?

This case has been closed[3] and archived,[4] but I'd like to know if there is a way to re-open it and get a second opinion.

I provided a lot of evidence, but the closing remarks were very brief and a little confusing. How do I re-open the case?

Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• Lightbreather, just go nominate WP:Duck for MfD since it's no longer relevant.--v/r - TP 17:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I was just studying other cases and picking up on the jargon. I actually thought, "Oh snap! I needed to say 'DUCK.'" The red tape here is similar to that of the U.S. government, or big insurance companies. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@TParis: So I don't piss anyone off (which I seem to have a knack for): Do I re-submit it using the "How to open an investigation" instructions? Do I un-archive it? Lightbreather (talk) 17:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

This is why I want to re-open. These are three closures from the last week:

1. No substantial evidence.[5]
2. Convincing behavioral evidence, primary (euthanasia) and secondary (medicinal) focus.[6]
3. Unconvincing? Even though there is a primary focus (gun control), and a secondary one (words that are "pejoratives").[7]

I agree with the first two. The third one (the one I opened) seems very similar to the second, but the evidence was deemed unconvincing, when it looks (using the term I've learned) like WP:DUCK to me. Lightbreather (talk) 18:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

You probably shouldn't reopen it. It'd just be seen as disruptive. Mike V is an uninvolved administrator and he says it's unconvincing. That may not be enough to silence my snark, but I wouldn't reopen that SPI without new and more evidence if I were you.--v/r - TP 18:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

You're confusing me, TP! What was your "duck" comment up-top about? Did you look at the evidence? How is the evidence I presented different from what was presented in the second example? And if it's not, why would it be disruptive to ask for a second review? Mike V, who may be a great guy, was the one who blocked me in November for editing while logged out,[8] so that may effect his ability to consider my evidence without prejudice. (Am I using the right jargon?) We also had a minor back-and-forth here, which may have also effected his ability to consider a case brought by yours truly. So - and again, he may be a nice guy, just like you - I think asking for a second opinion is not unreasonable, and certainly not meant to be disruptive, but to bring fresh eyes onto behavior that looks like socking to me. Lightbreather (talk) 18:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

When considering a case, I look at both "sides" of the case. In this specific case, I felt that the likelihood of the user being a sock was less than not. If you look at the editing time card, Faceless Enemy primarily abstains from editing from 8-16 h, while North8000 abstains around 4-8 h. The peak editing time is also different. Finally, note the frequency of edits throughout the week. North8000 edits consistently throughout each day of the week, while Faceless enemy's editing is more frequent in his or her evenings and during the weekend. These three aspects suggest they have different editing habits and that they live in different regions. I also looked at select sequences of their edits. There seems to be a number of edits that are too close in time frame to realistically be the same user. For instance, take a look at 21 July 2010 Faceless Enemy, North8000 they both made an edit at the same minute (23:04) and on August 2010 they made an edit a minute apart at 16:46 Faceless enemy North8000, just a name a few. The users also have very little overlap in topic interests. Compared to the evidence presented that primary focused on the accounts using a common word, I felt that the evidence suggesting they are not related was stronger.

Lightbreather: Just a general note, I personally choose to reserve the "duck" rationale for very obvious cases, such as this one with these two edits. (1, 2) I'm not one to hold grudges against people, especially on just a website. While I was the administrator who blocked you in the past, I'd like to note that I also closed this related case as well. If you can provide stronger evidence to link the users together, perhaps you might be able to convince a checkuser to run a check? North8000 just made 3 edits on the 6th, so the data is recent enough. In the meantime Bbb23, would you be willing to provide a second viewpoint? Mike V • Talk 20:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)