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.

Moroccan genetics

I hope you don't feel I'm using you as a "tame admin" (well, not too much).

I'm in a bit of a tricky "am I reverting vandalism or edit warring" situation on this one. However, 41.x IPs who have only edited this page have been putting it back to their preferred version (including a tranche of material from a circa-1920s "scientific racist" which means I'm pretty sure it's bogus) since, well, forever; not touching the talk page since I've had my eyes on it (they may have done so earlier, especially if Calssico is them.)

There seems to have been a more, ah, even-handed edit war in 2014, but near the end of that it was semi-ed for a week and then for 3 months (by an admin who has since apparently left WP, or I'd ask them). Could you take a look, please? Pinkbeast (talk) 11:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

YGM

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.

RO^(talk) 22:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Rm talk page privileges for suspected sock IP

Given the edits going on at User talk:94.197.45.151, should the IP (and/or the blocked range) have talk page privileges revoked? RA0808 ^talk_contribs 18:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

It looks like Kudpung revoked talk page access for the IP. Mike V • Talk 18:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015

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.

TheReviewingOfficial654321 (talk) 20:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Your close of SPI for Brad Dyer

You perhaps did not see the comments HJ Mitchell made in the case below. He said that he reviewed the evidence but was in two minds, and will consult with other admins who are familiar with NoCal. Closing the case would not solve anything because the user is already asking to be unblocked. See User_talk:Brad_Dyer#Review_and_SPI. Kingsindian ♝♚ 02:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

The editor is unblocked now. Kingsindian ♝♚ 04:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I came with the same question. CU was declined because the editor was blocked but that is no longer the case. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, I didn't decline CU. I only closed the case because at the time the account was blocked and the SPI case was a a moot point. Now that the account has been unblocked, the concerns can be re-raised. However, I can't act on evidence I haven't seen. I believe there are two options on how to proceed. You can follow up with HJ Mitchell, who seems to be the point functionary you've contacted. If he feels the private information is enough for a block, he can take care of it. The second option is forwarding the evidence to the functionary team list. (functionaries-enlists.wikimedia.org) We can evaluate the evidence presented and if a check is found to be possible and justified, we'll run one. Best, Mike V • Talk 15:20, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

FYI

Given your knowledge here, here, and here; I'm pingin you in light of this, this and especially this. All of which has led to this hatted discussion, which was continued here. Given the history, I have no wish to deal with this individual any further, and I have no wish to have any more drama after this exhausting past week, so am pinging some admins including you and Bbb23 who did NOT !vote at my RfA (hard to find many - 227 total !votes - whew!) to simply watch these conversations and advise or act if there is any need for action. Montanabw^(talk) 20:49, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you so much for your kindness and understanding. Please have a wonderful day! --A.S. Brown (talk) 00:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! You too! Mike V • Talk 00:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Software glitch?

I don't know how this thing should be, so pardon me if I am basing my question on silly assumption. Your name appears under this list but this log does not mention it. I don't even know in the first place if it should be there, so that is the first question -- should it be there? Second is, how is it decided? What is the procedure? (A link to appropriate documentation page would suffice). Thank you. --AmritasyaPutra^T 07:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Your two diffs above are identical.--Bbb23 (talk) 07:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed the link in-place. --AmritasyaPutra^T 08:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Certain rights changes are made by stewards and listed in a different place. If you look at the top of what you call "this log", you'll see that mentioned along with instructions on how to show those rights changes. Following them, you get this result. It's a bit confusing, but I hope that helps.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit-Happy

I noticed a plethora of contributions in a matter of seconds... are you using an auto-archive script of some sort? Almost positive you must be, but doesn't hurt to check in for the security of your account. --JustBerry (talk) 17:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Yep, it's the SPI helper script. Mike V • Talk 17:32, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Evlekis

Hello. Could you please take a look at Special:Contributions/Suomisvenks and Special:Contributions/Tormegz? Based on their style, behaviour and choice of targets (for Suomisvenks me...) there's a well over 50% chance they're Evlekis. Thomas.W ^talk 17:52, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

It looks like Bbb23 has already checked and confirmed the accounts as Evlekis. Mike V • Talk 18:06, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Quick CheckUser requests (Teahouse questions)

Mike, help me out here. I almost never pay attention to these requests. Was I wrong to decline it? I didn't see any difference between the request and an SPI, but you apparently did. Also, will changing the status to "close" cause the bot to archive it? The template is a bit unclear. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't say you were wrong. The case would have been better off with an SPI due to the number of accounts. SPI quick requests are usually for IBPE, blocking IP/ranges for a spam account, etc. I just dug through the contributions and found enough for a check, that's all. If you set the template to close, the bot will archive it in a few days. Mike V • Talk 01:10, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Does a "done" status cause it to archive sooner? "Done" seemed wrong to me because it sounds like I did something in response to the request, but I'm curious how the bot works.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:13, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't know if the bot was respond differently. If I had to hazard a guess, I think it just operates solely on the case closed parameter. Mike V • Talk 01:17, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Mike V -- I have been approached by the people at ATDF on helping them create a Wikipedia entry for Tony Waag. The prior attempt was sent to me in a word document and I have begun looking into it to see how to make it more appropriate for Wikipedia.

Any advice you could share in advance would be greatly appreciated. Thanks

LorrSG (talk) 00:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)LorrSG

Thank you!

Thanks very much for the suppression. GAB^Hello! 21:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

You revdel'd something @ Gaither High School

Can I ask what. Email if you want. 02:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't provide the content of revision deleted material unless there are extenuating circumstances that would warrant it. Best, Mike V • Talk 22:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

SPI archive

Hi, Mike,
I was looking at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Najaf ali bhayo/Archive and it looks like there is a lot of duplicated material, probably copied over from the active page to the archive twice. I wouldn't edit a SPI page but it looks like the first section on the page can be removed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

• I think after histmerging two case archives (which puts the archived cases of the merged-in archive in the top revision), Mike tried to grab the merged-into archived cases from history to paste them back into the top revision, but he must've grabbed the wrong old revision and re-added archived cases that were already there. I've now fixed it all up, I think, but Mike you're welcome to review it and make sure I did okay. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

This is the second time I've seen this happen in recent days so it must be an easy mistake to do. I know that when editors unarchive material from noticeboards, discuss it and rearchive it, the archive often ends up with two versions of the similar content. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that Salvidrim. It looks good to me. Mike V • Talk 21:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Take a look?

Hey. I don't know anyone here but I saw you blocked this person.

Look at the Talk page of user:VinWeasel

I don't know if it's a joke or not.

Anyway, have this for fun:

Darth10000 has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Your kitten must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{subst:Kittynap}}.

Thanks for the kitten! The account was one that I blocked while performing a check. Some people can be... interesting. ;) I wouldn't worry too much about it for now. Mike V • Talk 22:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case proposed decision posted

Hi Mike V. A decision has been proposed in the Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case, which you are listed as a party to. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 20:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC) (via MediaWiki message delivery (talk))

Weird stuff (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MadMans1019)

Mike, you archived this SPI yesterday. Not only is it still on the list at WP:SPI, but it's in a bizarre position. Any idea what the problem is?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I've purged the cache of the case, WP:SPI and the SPI/Case/Overview table, and made a null edit to the case. The bot removed the case in its latest update. I don't have a clue what the issue was. :p ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. At least it's gone now. The SPI that refused to die.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

It's back.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:12, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Fine now. Maybe my null edits a la Salvidrim! just took a bit longer to take effect. Or maybe it's Mike's fault; aren't these all his archivals? :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 17:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

unblock ipv6 request

Hi Mike, You blocked ip 2A03:2880:0:0:0:0:0:0/36 which is very long. One few ip/s used by sockpuppet . In this used many innocent user include they want wikipedia kindly unblock this ip thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.71.152 (talk • contribs)

The post above was made by Najaf ali bhayo (see SPI), i.e. the same person who was using the Facebook-IPs... Thomas.W ^talk 09:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked 119.160.64.0/19 for 2 weeks given the widespread abuse. The IPv6 address has been misused by a number of individuals so it's not going to be unblocked anytime soon. Mike V • Talk 20:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Block evasion related to Ridryman sock case

You blocked 166.172.184.116 based on an ANI report I filed, because the IP was editing disruptively and because the IP was from the same place in Florida, and was doing the same things in music articles as the Ridryman SPI case. You invited me to report to you any new block evasion from the same case.

Today, two IPs showed up doing the same thing. Not so disruptive as yesterday, but this certainly looks like block evasion:

• 166.172.184.122 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 166.172.184.9 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

In the past, these other IPs have been involved:

• 166.172.191.248 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 166.172.184.131 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 166.172.188.24 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 166.172.187.86 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

A rangeblock for 166.172.184.xxx would straddle the most recent IPs. Binksternet (talk) 21:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I've soft-blocked 166.172.0.0/16 for 1 week. Mike V • Talk 21:37, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. It sucks to block an editor from making good-faith changes, but block evasion should not be ignored. Binksternet (talk) 22:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

User rights changes

Hey there, I just got notified that you change a bunch of my user rights, and I was wondering what was going on. Did something happen to my account? If it's not too much trouble, can I get those rights back (except for course coordinator—I 'retired' from the Edu program a while back)? Either way, keep me posted. Thanks much, in advance! Daniel Simanek ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I've restored all the rights save the IP block exemption and the account creator right. IP block exemption is reserved for users who must edit through an IP block and have no alternatives. The account creator right is reserved for active members of the account creations team/education program team. Hope that helps! Best, Mike V • Talk 03:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

User rights changes 2

I had a IP exemption which was just removed (notification points to you). Could it please be re-enabled? 64.131.66.214. Existing justification was that the block was being applied very widely to a set of hosting IPs, rather than through the specific private IP mentioned above that I route traffic through. Many thanks. Opakapaka (talk) 20:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I just ran a check on your account and it appears that you aren't affected by any blocks that would require IPBE. Please note that editing through a proxy is only permitted in exceptional circumstances. Best, Mike V • Talk 01:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The block is for 64.131.64.0/19, which is a huge portion of AS25847, and it is indeed affecting my account since I work from 64.131.66.214. Definitely not an anonymous proxy. Could you kindly reconsider? Opakapaka (talk) 13:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry block requests

Hi Mike, thanks for blocking the latest incarnation of Roadcreature/The Jolly Bard. Just for my information, when there's an exceedingly obvious case of sockpuppetry like that, should I be going to ANI or SPI (or somewhere else entirely)? My impression is that SPI can take a fair bit longer (and is for more unclear cases), and since this is an ArbCom case and a long-standing issue, I've been going to ANI as the faster forum. Thoughts? – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 01:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I still would recommend posting at SPI. It helps keep all the accounts at a central location. Usually the cases with straightforward socking and/or strong evidence are expedited. Mike V • Talk 23:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Dani de santa

Keep an eye on this editor you recently blocked. I recently noticed the user spammed his/her talk page with the hoax he/she insisted on inserting. Might need to revoke talk page access if things get out of hand. Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

You asked for it

You're in, by unanimous consent: [1]. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)