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/Darreg

Hi Mike, I'm going to have to evaluate Risker's comments but am not sure when as I'm suffering from sleep deprivation at the moment. But not to worry, I'm not asking you to do that instead of me. Rather, I'm asking you to do something much narrower, which, hopefully, won't take up too much of your time. Note my comments at the SPI about the IP ("the IP has a huge number of open ports, making me think it's either an open proxy or close to it"). Do you agree with that or have anything more illuminating to say about the IP? Thanks and no problem if you're too busy to do this. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Sorry for the belated reply. I've looked at the IP and it seems that it's compromised and used for Nigerian scams. I've gone ahead and blocked it. Mike V • Talk 18:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

It's been a busy time. I'm a little dizzy, actually. And it doesn't help that I'm recovering from some surgery (nothing serious), which is wearing me out pain-wise. That said, Mr. Fount of Information, I'd like to understand two things. First, how did you determine that the IP address was being used by spambots? Second, what did Risker mean when she said, "it's on a highly dynamic range in a country with fairly limited IP ranges"? I understand the words themselves, but I don't understand what conclusion I'm supposed to draw with respect to blocking or not blocking the IP. Congrats on your two appointments, btw. You richly deserved them. If I had felt comfortable voting for other candidates during the community discussion, I would have voted for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that and I hope you have a speedy recovery. I used the spamhaus database to learn about it's use. I believe that what she's trying to say is that since it changes quickly and there's limited options for IPs, it's not easy to make any behavioral connections. I wouldn't worry to much about it now. Also, congrats on your CU appointment as well! I look forward to working with you. Mike V • Talk 01:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

It's going to take longer for me to get up to speed than you, but I've started the process (slow going). You'll no doubt be pleased to know I am pestering Ponyo with questions rather than you, but I reserve the right to be a pain in the butt if needed. --Bbb23 (talk) 23:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Question

Hi Mike. I was wondering if you could help me with something. When I was on an article and putting my cursor over a reference (next to the sentence in the article, not editing page). I accidentally hit the disable tooltip button and I don't know how to get it back. Can you help me with that please? If so, I would really appreciate it. Thanks a lot, Fresh Sullivan (talk) 21:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Fresh Sullivan. If you click on your preferences tab at the top of the screen and click on the gadgets tab, under the browsing section there's an option at the bottom to enable the reference tooltips. You may also re-enable it by clicking on the link in the footer of the article page. I hope that helps! Mike V • Talk 12:29, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! I got them enabled again. Fresh Sullivan (talk) 19:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

" Your user rights were changed by Mike V. You are no longer a member of this group: Account creators."

Care to explain? The "Learn more" link tells me nothing. Johnbod (talk) 04:10, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I left a note in the user rights log, so I'm not quite sure why the link didn't work. Anyways, it appears that the account creator role was issued to you while you were a part of the Wikipedian-in-residence program. As the program appears to have concluded, I removed the right. Best, Mike V • Talk 04:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I still do training, so please put it back. Johnbod (talk) 04:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Please note that the account creator right is not required to create an account. It's only needed when a user will exceed 6 accounts in 24 hours. According to your user creation log it seems you have not created an account yet, so I don't believe that you will encounter this restriction. However, if there is a specific event where you will anticipate the need to create a number of accounts, you're welcome to make a request at the permission noticeboard. Mike V • Talk 04:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

The thing is always intended as a backup. I have in fact needed to use it, but had an admin assisting who did it. Excuse me if I saw that your belief (based on ???) is neither here nor there. When you need it you need it in a hurry, with a large group watching. You don't seem to understand how this is used. Are you going to restore it, or should I ask someone else? Johnbod (talk) 14:29, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

The basis of it's removal was from this RfC, as summarized on the account creator permission page. Essentially, the right is only intended for active members of the account creation team or the educational program team. As I mentioned above, if you have need of the right for an upcoming program you are more than welcome to request it for the duration of the event. Mike V • Talk 15:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Wonderful! So the whole purpose of setting up the right is now negated. Great. Obviously noone will bother to jump through all these hoops every time they have an event, or I certainly won't. Johnbod (talk) 16:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations on OS and CU

• Great to see that you have achieved these milestones. Hope to see a lot more coming from you. Thank you. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Abusive user

The abusive user continues to disrupt Wikipedia. SLBedit (talk) 15:32, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

81.193.34.78 (talk · contribs) SLBedit (talk) 18:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I've range blocked 81.193.0.0/17 for a week. Mike V • Talk 18:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Assistance

As you blocked Babestress in accordance with the SPI I filed, I was wondering if you could provide an opinion on his user page. It seems to consist of bits and bobs pasted from other user pages. I noted this because he has actually copied a piece of my user page, that is, the userbox bar on the right. It even includes a "bot shutoff" button, something that obviously doesn't apply. All in all, I think the page should be deleted. It is a confusing mix of pieces copied from elsewhere, is incomprehensible, and potentially misleading. It seems to be evidence of the disruptive behaviour that this user has embodied. What can be done about it? RGloucester — ☎ 17:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I just wiped the page clean. That should take care of it. Mike V • Talk 17:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. RGloucester — ☎ 17:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Amanharleen

Hi, You have just closed this investigation at 13:29 today:- Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amanharleen/Archive. He is back now with another sockpuppet:- Khushh229. His use of the 229 in his name as per his other sock:- Jasmeen-229 is too obvious. can this be added onto the archived report or do we need to start another new one? Richard Harvey (talk) 16:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

The account has been blocked by Luk with a notation on the talk page. Mike V • Talk 02:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Blocked user/possible sock renaming userpage

Since you blocked User:Destructor rph I thought I'd mention this to you. A new editor User:Mallardbird who's also vandalizing the Death of Leelah Alcorn page has renamed the Destructor rph userpage as User:Joshua Alcorn. He's also recreated the Alcorn page on that userpage, but as Joshua Alcorn. I have no idea how to revert what he's done. I'm assuming he's a sock of Destructor rph since he has the same editing patterns. Thanks. freshacconci talk to me 01:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Oversight on Dean Hall (game designer)

• Thanks - you may want to remove the edit summary of ESkog's edit at 3:41, 10 March 2015, as it contains the offensive username. (Probably should've mentioned that in the request). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:35, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done Mike V • Talk 00:06, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you very much. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Mike_V!

		The Admin's Barnstar
		Thank you for the speedy RevDel today, I feel safe that I can contribute to Wikipedia and administrators will help us out when we make a boo-boo! —Picardin (talk) 20:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Possible sock of Giovannigiulio

I'm concerned that Gmira99 may be a sockpuppet of Giovannigiulio, judging from the types of pages he is targeting. Whether or not the account really is a sock is up for debate. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 20:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I would recommend that you open up a SPI and compile the evidence that you have seen. This will help keep the investigation centralized and allows the team to evaluate the situation. Mike V • Talk 17:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Lucio Dalla

Guess what happened the same day the semi-protection ran out? Pinkbeast (talk) 11:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I extended the protection on the page to 3 months. Mike V • Talk 16:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks/sigh. One wishes this weren't necessary. Still, when whoever it is registers an(other) account the ensuing SPI will match them up to that IP range nicely. :-/ Pinkbeast (talk) 16:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

SPI

Hey, Mike,
I don't normally get involved in sockpuppet investigations but I came across Royalmate3 and thought I should notify some admin as this is probably a block evasion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. It's all taken care of. Mike V • Talk 17:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Bangladesh Army Chief's Photo

@Mike V Iqbal Karim Bhuiyan's photo has been removed two years ago .Can you revert that ? MilitaryBangla (talk) 02:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately I cannot as the file isn't compliant with our no-free content policy. Mike V • Talk 02:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

General Ershad's Photo

@mike v :the article of general ershad (Hussain Muhammad Ershad) needs a military-dressed photo. Will you be able to give? MilitaryBangla (talk) 04:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Mike V. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 15:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC). 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.

Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

SPI revisted

May I first know that why you were commenting only on "some of" not even the half or most or whole evidence on this SPI? Why you had termed it as "it's an article" contrary to what I had provided, the IP hopping-edit warring on 2 different articles. Why you didn't responded to tons of compelling proofs that was posted after your comment? The whole SPI was then archived. You said that you "would caution" Bargolus for edit warring with IP addresses, I still don't see anything on acc's UTP. Why there is a need of assuming such a great faith, especially in this kind of SPI?

If two people says "stop it please" that doesn't means that they don't share similarities just because these 3 words have existence, they share similarity because they have used them together, the more terms they have used together, the more similarities they would share. We were not comparing an account with 1,000 edits with other having 10,000 edits, but one having 50 edits(48 after 28 March) and other having only 3,500 edits and history of violating WP:ILLEGIT over the same edits. It is a simple fact today that even half-brainier(like Risker said[1][2]) is able to defeat technical evidence, so how can you solely rely on technical evidence in 2015 and ignore the clear-cut WP:DUCK case? The behavioral evidence and given history of same behavior is just too big to ignore, you can convince me otherwise and without telling "I also did this", unless you had carried out same edit war on these articles.

Since the SPI, suspect has not edited the article, neither anyone else has edited this article from 2 April, it happened today when I made this edit thus your prediction that "some of these users will also agree on the same" is evidently incorrect.

As a sidenote, my statements hold water, as explained here those three suspects are now blocked as socks, something that you or DoRD hadn't found and treated the IP as a legit editor. I was surprised that I could not find the match in timings of those accounts with Zhanzhao, but it is certainly not a case with Bargolus, as the timings shows clear match.

Sometimes it happens that when a person is using openvpn or multiple ISPs, accounts would lose technical connection with each other, but when you examine the bigger picture, such as history of having used numerous openvpn, proxies or any other IP masking technique, you find that they are still related to each other. Kindly review this SPI, there is more yet to be presented. Thank you. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 23:11, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

As I've already said on IRC, the technical evidence shows that the accounts are unrelated. I also mentioned that I was not convinced with the behavioral evidence. Given these two points, I'm not comfortable blocking either account. I didn't leave a message for Bargolus on their talk page because I used a template to ping them. The case you've cited has no bearing on the case I closed. The one I closed was comparing Bargolus to Zhanzhao. The other case involved StillStanding-247, Resaltador, and TCKTKtool. You've been politely asked by others to no longer pursue this issue. I would strongly encourage you to heed their advice. Mike V • Talk 00:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Have you carefully evaluated that "advice"? It is an outdated one, and effectively conquered with what they hadn't even expected, according to "their" own words. How did those accounts even concerned Zhanzhao anymore? Given that I was under a restriction, circumstances were different, but now that restriction is not only lifted, but actually removed. I can be convinced otherwise if you can tell that the advice has any bearing anymore or not. 72.196.235.154 was a sock, how you could not figure it out especially when you treated "technical evidence" as the biggest priority. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The advice still holds. A number of clerks/admins/checkusers have reviewed the Zhanzhao case and aren't convinced that the evidence presented is enough to warrant a block. It's acceptable to seek additional opinions but when others agree with the original results and you continue to ask for reviews, it comes off as admin-shopping until you get the result you want. As DoRD already mentioned, "72.196.235.154 is a residential cable connection on the other side of the planet from the other IPs, so there's no way that they're related to the other IPs". I stand by my decision with this case. Mike V • Talk 01:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I am talking about the basis of agreement. I never had any issues with your decisions before and neither you had with any of mine. What you have to say about this non-policy based and problematic[3] decision? Did they ever thought of those innocent editors who were edit warring these two accounts and arguing, like they are operated by 2 legit editors? This diff that I found a few days ago (not even a week) seems to be speaking against any recruitment of "family members", thus even if that impossible notion(that he had made up after looking at the SPI) seemed correct to someone, the abuse of multiple accounts policy look 100% intended. Only appropriate solution was to indef all accounts, per standards and norms. Fact is every new evidence must overturn any previous decision, and even more when they were not policy based. Why we are not following these principles? Either follow them, or propose a new text on WP:SOCK, saying that:

"Regardless of their previous offenses, if a sock master insists that the reported suspect was used by somebody from their household, they should be vindicated from any breach of multiple accounts policy."

If you are thinking that why I am discussing this all. It is because before I would raise these concerns elsewhere, I would be asked if I had discussed it with the concerning people. In few words, I am within my rights and there are serious concerns over such mishandling. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

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.

SPI re Evanthius Donatus

Hi -- re this, thanks for dealing with the sock. But what about the master? If Evanthius Donatus operated a sock puppet, then that editor needs to understand that it's not allowed, that there would be consequences for doing it again, etc. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:05, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I left a note for the user. Mike V • Talk 21:22, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

you've got 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.

Discussion at Talk:Nazi gun control theory

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Nazi gun control theory#Godsy's preferred lead. Should article be locked down/protected? If so, which version, and for how long? Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 22:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)Template:Z48

User talk:DawnDusk#Block notice

You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:DawnDusk#Block notice. You may have already seen it, but since they inccorrecttly pinged you, unblock request you might want to review. You may have already seen it on your watchlist though... Thanks. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 02:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)Template:Z48

Nafsadh - October SPI at ANI

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#PA_on_SPI

As the CU actioning the SPI, you might want to take a look. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

MehulWB/Nickaang

Hi. I noticed an account today that fits the MehulWB/Nickaang pattern of editing. Blenoskimes (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is a throwaway account that works just like all of the Nickaang/MehulWB (and, I'm sure, numerous other edit-for-hire shops) throwaway accounts. It edits a few random things to get autoconfirmed. Then it creates the article it actually cares about (Troy DeVolld in this case) as a redirect. Then it expands the article several days later where it's not going to get noticed by new page patrol. I know this is thin ... but it's obviously somebody's throwaway edit-for-hire account. --B (talk) 11:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Vocativ

I think Vocativ needs to be semi-protected again. We just had another sock puppet with a brand new account pop up. Thanks. Intermittentgardener (talk) 15:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked the account. Given the technical evidence and the behavior, it's a  Likely sock of Tikkunallambahertz. Mike V • Talk 15:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

revdel?

Can you take care of this. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

All taken care of. Mike V • Talk 16:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Shah439 / FlickTinyHDL ?

It appears the indefinitely blocked user Shah439 is back with another sock-puppet FlickTinyHDL. Could you please investigate? Thanks. Nightbat (talk) 03:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Question re courtesy blanking

although I have been here for some long time I cannot recall coming across this action before. Am I right in thinking, as it appears, that courtesy-blanked text is not admin-accessible? No problem, just asking. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Azviz

I had removed my edit due to an unauthorized topic ban, and it was obvious that Vanjagenije thought that there are no complaints.[4] Although there are, it is possible that this person is Azviz. Creation of same articles is pretty compelling. Well, if you think that it is not Azviz, I am even fine with that, still I have one question: If I happen to find more evidence in future, I can re-open the SPI? Targeting the same suspect. Thanks. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC)