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.

User:Jytdog

You closed the ANI thread about that user's indef block. Apparently the block cannot be discussed at ANI since it is under the exclusive jurisdiction of ArbCom. I cannot find discussion of the block at ArbCom. If and when a case is opened there, it would be very helpful to other interested editors to provide a link in the ANI summary. Thanks. Edison (talk) 21:40, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe there has been public discussion about the block from the arbitration committee as a whole. A case has not been opened. Mike V • Talk 00:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, that explains why I couldn't find it. I am curious as to how an editor who is not able to post on Wikipedia could appeal his block. Does some other editor have to file a case on his behalf? Is he supposed to edit as an IP? Edison (talk) 03:04, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

For normal administrative blocks, a user can appeal via UTRS. Since this is an oversight block, he will have to appeal by email to the oversight team or arbcom. Mike V • Talk 03:12, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Attack account

Hi, wanted to let you know that someone has made an attack account targeting you. See here. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 22:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. It's not the first and it won't be the last. Mike V • Talk 00:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I did not know that about you. ;) HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 03:16, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KnightWarrior25

Requesting urgent attention as it goes stale in just one day. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 12:22, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to Bbb23 for beating me to it! Mike V • Talk 17:16, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Checkuser check

Please do a checkuser check on user:Fuck the Golden State Warriors! Sincerely, Tikeem and user:TikeemIsMyWorld and block the IP address where those accounts originate. 2602:306:3357:BA0:B919:A583:2133:8AAF (talk) 04:47, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

All the accounts have been blocked. Mike V • Talk 14:43, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

RevDel

Hello, Mike. Thanks for addressing the oversight request at Talk:Jo Ann Castle (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs). I noticed, you reversed the revision deletion of some revisions. I had deliberately revision deleted those revisions because they contained a link to a blacklisted external website (albeit written in plain text to avoid the blacklist). The blacklisted website contains material no less defamatory and (we're going back a couple of years now) had previously been inserted into Wikipedia to further an external dispute with an associate of the article subject, Lin Biviano. At the time, the perpetrator even went so far as to register a domain in Biviano's name, direct it to the same problematic website, and insert it into the relevant Wikipedia articles.

Given all of the above, would you consider hiding the offending revisions once more? CIreland (talk) 01:33, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

@CIreland: Thanks for pointing that out. I've taken care of those revisions as well. Mike V • Talk 14:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

What are you doing..???

Why are you abusing and calling me another vandal (sock puppet) and blocking my account and editing it in WikiPedia.If you further do this and abuse me is I'll report you to wikipedia.You can't misuse me and my accounts ,and I am not that Vandal.This is your final warning if you block my accounts I will report you and ban you from Wikipedia.

Regards-Prof Thomas P.K. Prof.Thomas P.K (talk) 07:34, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Blocked as a sockpuppet of Saatvik.Jacob Material Scientist. And if not that one, admitted that they are somebody's sockpuppet. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:44, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Admitted they are a sockpuppeteer. _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:57, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Suspiciousness

Not sure how this guy managed to find and welcome a long-blocked Evlekis sock. Reminds me of this sort of thing. Weird. GAB^gab 20:49, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

All taken care of. :) Mike V • Talk 21:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Mike V. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 09:34, 4 July 2016 (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.

— JJMC89 (T·C) 09:34, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. By the way, I got five copies of your reply. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:33, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia sockpuppets of Sarojupreti

Hi Mike, sarojupreti is using more than 8 accounts. Currently he is using Beebek Bhurtel which is Wikipedia sockpuppets of Sarojupreti So Please investige about this problem.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bollywood Nude (talk • contribs) 17:03, 4 July 2016‎

Comment edited to remove this talk page from the sock category. (This post seems to have been a boomerang, Bollywood Nude is plainly a sock of Sarojupreti.) --McGeddon (talk) 09:23, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

You got moremore 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.

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.

EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:28, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Timothy Leary

You semi-protected Timothy Leary on 5 June 2016. That expired a couple of days ago and the IP is back so I'm hoping you could help again. Thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 07:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I've put the article under semi-protection for 3 months. Mike V • Talk 20:04, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Mike V. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 18:59, 12 July 2016 (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.

-- LuK3 (Talk) 18:59, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Karamjeet

Hey Mike V.

• Garrykhatrao (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Karamjeet91 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Personalkaramjeet (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) (ACC #176361)

I suspect these accounts are related based on the deletion notices on the talk pages of the first two and the comments on my talk page for the third. The last two also have similar names (both referring to Karamjeet Singh according to the message on my talk page and this). Since most of the contributions have been deleted, could you take a look. I can always file an SPI if you prefer. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for passing this on. Garrykhatrao and Karamjeet91 are  Confirmed and Personalkaramjeet is just a smidgen short of  Confirmed. I've blocked all 3 accounts. Mike V • Talk 16:56, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Atcurrent

It seems likely that User:Jatrombabitw and User:Ohmychrissy are Atcurrent, but I didn't catch them until I saw Draft:Chrissy Costanza. I'm actually pretty sure this all goes back to User:Atiq Zawad. Same contribs focus, etc. Is that good enough to block, or do I need to open another SPI? MSJapan (talk) 22:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Jatrombabitw, Ohmychrissy, and Atiq Zawad are technically  Unrelated to each other. Mike V • Talk 15:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

That's interesting. Thanks for checking! MSJapan (talk) 16:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Philipandrew2

Hi. Kindly check my report for Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Philipandrew. I believe this puppet filed the same case against me (to my surprise) and another user after i have discovered and warned him on his OR and hoax edits, and found out his history here after filing the same. Thank you.--RioHondo (talk) 12:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Re: Sockpuppet investigations/DarknessShines2

‎Azad Balochi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sir, seems he's back. Editing the same pages related to Balochistan. Thanks—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 20:08, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Archive link?

Hi Mike, any idea why the prior cases/archive link isn't showing beneath the user's name at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sage of the Six Paths? Usually at the bottom you'd see:

For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sage of the Six Paths/Archive.

I'm asking you only because you closed it. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:55, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: That's likely because you need to purge the page to update the cache. Click this link and it should appear. Mike V • Talk 02:22, 17 July 2016 (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.— Miniapolis 14:57, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Replied! Mike V • Talk 02:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Hide this edit summary

Hello, user:24.114.36.214 just wrote an uncivil edit summary for her edit on Vicky Hudson, and I think you should hide it. CLCStudent (talk) 16:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

The edit summary doesn't appear to be offensive enough that it would require removal from public view. This would fall under the category of ordinary incivility. Mike V • Talk 16:34, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Open investigation

Evidence has been provided as requested, and was provided in a timely manner from your original request on 7/14. Please review this case, or set it back to "open" to allow another CU to take over. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/River Stumpf Regards - Garchy (talk) 14:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

SPI cases are not "assigned" to a specific SPI clerk, admin, or checkuser. Requests can be processed by any available individual at any time, provided they have the necessary user rights to process the request. Mike V • Talk 14:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, appreciate the insights. This user has a tendency to just create a new account, causing trouble again - there are many investigations that have already been done for 2016 - is there anything that can be done, other than waiting for more edits to open another SPI case? It tends to be exhausting and requires much more manpower than necessary (from regular users to Admins/CU's like yourself). Perhaps some sort of IP rangeblock? Regards, Garchy (talk) 17:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Checkuser request

Hey Mike! Long time no talk :) Can you please do a check on this user? I have strong suspicion that they might be evading their block. Thanks! Jim Carter 12:32, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I would appreciate your help at : Bill Ayers.

I noticed your comment about Xenophrenic, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Xenophrenic#Bill_Ayers_has_been_labelled_a_.22domestic_terrorist.22_by_the_FBI. He, and others, are trying to sanitize article Bill Ayers of a source citing the FBI as identifying Ayers as a "domestic terrorist". I realize that such a label is contentious, and is a WP:BLP issue, but a statement by the FBI is significant, and should be sufficient to be cited in article Bill Ayers. Also, please check wP: Dreams From my Father: Perhaps the reason that the label placed on Ayers is so significant is that three years ago, Ayers himself admitted to being the ghostwriter for "Obama's" Dreams from my Father book, after it was noticed by numerous people that Ayers' and DFMF writing styles were so similar. Naturally, this looks quite embarrassing to an Obama-supporter. 216.161.88.111 (talk) 18:01, 23 July 2016 (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.

Xenophrenic (talk) 13:50, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

July 2016

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Request unblock of Martinevans123. Thank you. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:02, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Range block on a sock timed out

Hi. After Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Easy4me/Archive#06 July 2016, you range blocked 68.33.88.0/21 for two weeks. Since then, 68.33.93.154 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has resumed Easy4me (talk · contribs)'s edits. The edit summaries have slightly changed from his habitual ones, but they're still basically the same: Easy4me: "updated gross", 68.33.93.154: "The box office total has been changed."; Easy4me: "updated reviews", 68.33.93.154: "The Rotten Tomatoes score was changed.". These very similar edits are to the same articles. Since Easy4me is evading his block again, could you restore the range block? His gnomish edits aren't so bad, obviously, but he was blocked for disruptive editing, and these socks sometimes continue to intermix disruptive edits with gnomish ones, such as adding unsourced content, which was one of the main reasons he was blocked in the first place. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:23, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I've blocked the same range for 1 month. Mike V • Talk 22:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

OTRS ticket

Would you be able to take a quick look at ticket:2016043010009086 and see what you can do? Thanks! --Majora (talk) 04:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I've sent you an email with a reply. Mike V • Talk 17:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

209.242.141.60

209.242.141.60 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

This IP is currently blocked but is registered as an open transparent proxy. For the purposes of sock-puppetry (and maybe other reasons as well), can you disable the "anon. only" feature on their block list, and possibly extend the duration of the block, if not make it indefinite. Cheers. 172.58.41.140 (talk) 01:34, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I've verified that port 8080 is accessible as a proxy and hard blocked it. Mike V • Talk 17:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

IPBE on my account

Hello, in February 2016 I got my IPBE right removed because apparently I shouldn't be affected by the blocks placed on the Tor exit nodes. Alas, today I got hit again by the block put by the User:ProcseeBot. Could you please reconsider this and give me the IPBE back? Thank you.  « Saper // @talk »  23:18, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Is there an exceptional reason you need to edit through tor? On en.wiki, there is a criteria that needs to be met before granting IPBE. You can email me if there are privacy concerns. Best, Mike V • Talk 19:57, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

202.45.119.0/24

Please review the block on this range. It currently doesn't have an expiration. Thanks. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I was not the original admin who placed the block. That would be Reaper Eternal. I would suggest getting in touch with her about the specifics. As for adjusting the block, I vaguely recall that it was related to the account creation procedures. Mike V • Talk 19:57, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Mike. I've asked her about it. — JJMC89 (T·C)

ACC related

Hi Mike, please have a look at this request when possible. Thanks and regards—UY Scuti ^Talk 19:14, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I left a note on the ACC ticket. Mike V • Talk 22:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about my nudging.. But I did see a holding page on port 80 (and on SSL port 443) earlier when I checked regardless, I was not able to view/edit Wikipedia with the proxy. Am I not seeing what you are seeing? :P Regards—UY Scuti ^Talk 09:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm willing to AGF on the user if you want to go ahead and create it. I'll keep an eye out on the account just in case. Mike V • Talk 14:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

revdel request

Could you please delete the edit summary at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Centipede92&oldid=732899207 thanks! --Laber□^T 20:39, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't believe that meets the criteria for revision deletion. Mike V • Talk 21:21, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Why not? --14:43, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

"Removing some weirdos ramblings" is not grossly insulting. That falls under ordinary incivility which is not allowed for redaction. Mike V • Talk 14:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom case on TRM

I invite you to discuss The Rambling Man. You might be an involved party. --George Ho (talk) 16:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)