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.
Hi there, I got a notification that I no longer have an IP block exemption. Any special reason why not? I haven't been using those computers lately, but I might conceivably want to at some point. Elinruby (talk) 09:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. It's not so much the computers that you are using, but the network that you access. Originally, the IP block exemption was granted to you because you were affected by a hard block a range that you use. I've looked at the block and it is no longer in place. You should be able to edit just fine without IPBE. If you encounter any difficulties, please let me know and I'd be glad to take a look. Mike V • Talk16:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike V: ok, network. Be technical. Let's try this again. The IP block in question was the library system for San Mateo County, California. Big place, downtown Bay Area, tho sure, apparently there were persistent vandals, I get it, the admin I talked to about this explained it to me at the time..
My point is, though, that although I have been able to edit from home recently, I might need to go to the library fairly soon, actually, since I have been working on an article about a big news story (Panama Papers) and am increasingly hampered by paywalls, ie "we're glad you like the Financial Times so much -- please subscribe." I can't do that for ALL the publications, so I need a different internet gateway.If you are saying that I don't need it anymore because I haven't needed it, you may be wrong, is all I am saying.
Or Or has Wikipedia lifted the IP block on San Mateo County, and that's why you are saying I don't need it? In that case, I might agree with you, actually. Are you able to easily determine whether Santa Clara County has the same restrictions? I don't live *that* far from there any more. If I can be autoconfirmed on wikipedia on their network, no, guess I can do without it if you want to keep user permissions at lowest needed level. I would. Can you ping me please? This may affect my plans for the next few days. And if I can avoid a journey just to discover that WP thinks I am a newbie, that would be great :) Thanks Elinruby (talk) 15:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Elinruby: The blocks that were previously affecting you are no longer in place. You should be able to edit just fine while logged into your account. Mike V • Talk16:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was a bit confused as to what happened here. Of course I don't have the tools you do, but did an IP or MACD check confirm this is a sockpuppet? I assume you have completely ruled out the possibility that these are two editors who are friends and canvassed each other. I only bring this up because it seemed there was a 180 between your evaluation and Vanjagenije. Valoemtalkcontrib22:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I ran a check to compare the accounts. I decided to dig deeper when I saw the AfD votes. The interaction tool showed more overlapping discussions, with some votes only minutes apart. I ran a check and found technical evidence that connected the accounts, including apparent attempts to hide his efforts of sockpuppetry. Mike V • Talk22:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For your consideration, in case you want to give a warning, take action, or merely weigh this in case future problems arise. He just posted a deceptive search link in an RFC, which I consider disruptive. Quick background, and for brevity I assume you don't care what ESI is. He had been creating lists based on ESI, rebuilding existing lists to be based ESI, and sock-voting to keep them. There is currently an RFC open to decide whether ESI is an unencyclopedic value that shouldn't be used at all in our general articles. It's currently going against him. He just made this edit. The search result returns 46 science papers, which he claims backs up common scientific use of ESI. Except 43 of the 46 search results are bogus, false hits. (I checked each and every one.) He also presented 3 specific valid links from that list as "just three random papers I clicked on", as examples of science papers using ESI. Normally we would AGF a flawed search link. However if he had clicked three links at random, as he claims, there's only a 1 in 15180 chance that he could have clicked the exact three valid search results. I think he's burned his AGF, there's no way this was an innocent mistake. It's another effort to deceptively subvert voting in his favor, for his ESI fetish. Alsee (talk) 12:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Mike V. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 18:44, 16 April 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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hello, sorry to bother you, but have got a suspicion that CosmicEmperor is using a new sockpuppet called ThePlatypusofDoom. He's similar to GreekLegend in being heavily involved with AFD, issuing prods, interfering with new page patrols to issue csds,(he's been warned on his talkpage for interfering with npp actions) and also interfering at the ANI board. Thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:30, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Have I told you how amazing you are? ;).. On a totally unrelated note.. *looks back and forth* ACC has a CU backlog of 15+ requests and 4 days. :) -- Cheers,Riley20:09, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Ok, thanks. I see socks are appearing out of the woodwork at a great rate, almost faster than you can keep up. Wish there was some way to block the parent IP (or range?). I know you can't talk about that. --MelanieN (talk) 20:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please comment on Biscuittin, in relation to this crop of socks.
Do you think Biscuittin was the sockmaster behind this group? There's no obvious evidence given on the SPI page and there are a number of master pages open with overlapping puppets claimed.
So far I have seen no evidence to connect this to Biscuittin. I'd worked around Biscuittin for some years, rarely happily, but he had never struck me as the type to start socking or pull this level of disruption. Jytdog though is now throwing his name around whenever some new random troll pops up. This is right against a bunch of our basic principles: we should AGF Biscuittin unless there is evidence to really suggest otherwise, unfounded SPIs are harassment, and it's also basically unfair to be throwing so many allegations around after blocking their access to reply.
While I appreciate your efforts in assuming good faith, the technical evidence does show a credible connection between the socks and the account. The behavioral evidence of the socks targeting Jytdog lends support to this conclusion as well. Mike V • Talk15:05, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Being pissed off at Jytdog isn't restricted to Biscuittin though! I saw Biscuittin's initial trouble, and their thoroughly unproductive indef, as being targetted at JzG, not Jytdog. The "WP needs reform" essay is the sort of thing that has many hands over it already and is no more than a shared grievance. Even QuackGuru has as much involvement with that as anyone else, yet Jytdog is never going to accuse him of being a sock. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, it's only supporting evidence. The technical evidence carries a lot of the weight in establishing the connection. Mike V • Talk
As usual, that's all behind the impenetrable veil of CU but "Possilikely" is hardly damning! How many sockmasters has Milligansuncle now been accused of being a puppet for? Four? If we can't be clearer than that, it's no grounds for declaring Biscuittin as the next Trotsky/Snowball/Josef K unperson. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that "because of checkuser evidence" isn't the best thing to hear. It's inherently opaque, as the privacy policy limits when and to whom I can release this information. With that said, I believe it's done that way for the best. The possilikely result was the outcome of only one of the checks that I performed. However, upon looking at the new accounts that have arisen, the technical data has become more clear and it was easier to reach my conclusion. Mike V • Talk19:31, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the rapid
…reversion of vandalism at the Prince article. One can only be appreciative of the diligence it takes to prevent such offenses, here.
Indulge my technical and procedural curiosity, if you will—how is it that the Revision history's time and date stamp link points to a non-vandaised version of the article in place of the vandalised? This must be a capability limited to Administrators I am guessing? Regarding the need, despite this, for an historical record, please see below.
I note also that the Edit summaries for both the vandalism and reversion are "edit summary removed" with a strike-through. Is this the prescribed way of dealing with offensive vandalism? I can understand the need to limit circulation of an offensive edit, but should there not be a clear record, in the Edit summary or Talk (somewhere), for the historical record, as to what occurred? ("Offensive edit of the type… removed and replaced with…", or some such.)
Also, am I wrong on perceiving that your edit, being made within a minute of the vandalism, despite which, The Wrap ended up with a "screen shot" of the offensive vandalism, would suggest that the editor Heidi Wyss that is now blocked, did their edit with the specific intent of creating content to provide to a publication such as The Wrap? (Had the edit stayed in place for any length of time, there would be other explanations. But given the one minute turn-around, it seems to me that the record of the vandalism could only have been made during the edit, by the vandals themselves.) Are there technical points I am missing that would suggest otherwise? (For instance, was exchange of the link to the offending page edit at the Revision history's time and date stamp immediate, as the edit summary suggests, or was that unique aspect of the reversion and record generation perhaps done later, leaving time for someone to make a copy, via an authentic link to the past page, for transmission to The Wrap?)
My interest in this, is (eventually) to shed light on the way that the story made its way outside of Wikipedia. Per your diligence, it does not seem that is should have. Cheers, and again, thanks for the attention and effort. Leprof 7272 (talk) 23:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article was moved to an offensive name and I had moved it back to the original title. Another administrator used the revision deletion tool to redact the log entry. The editor, Heidi Wyss, was then blocked for this vandalism. As for whether The Wrap was responsible for it, I can't say for sure. Yesterday there were 5.8 million page views, so a number of individuals could have seen the concerning revision(s) in that short period of time. Mike V • Talk13:52, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't appear to be related to Whiskeymouth, but the account is confirmed to BettyDavis1989, StudentAssignment1, Justaprilfols, Dishwater Red, and Ensign Hapuna of the Royal Hawaiian Navy. Mike V • Talk13:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for catching that. I reviewed the technical evidence and it seems you are right. I've gone ahead and merged the cases. Mike V • Talk15:05, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hapuna
I am posting only to contact you because I don't know how to contact you otherwise. I have no intention of editing.
I request that you exempt me (Hapuna) from your recent action. This is a computer in a lounge. I have acted responsibly. You may, of course, act with insults, denial, or other authoritative means but I simply ask you to be fair and compassionate with me. Thank you. Ensign H (talk) 19:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks for intervening but checked again today, my block status says unblocked, but when i try to edit a page i created, it says you are blocked. Please counter-check again. Thanks
Thank you very much sirs'. You don't know how happy I am for the privilege to be legally back to Wikipedia. You made my day, this is not something I will take for granted at all. Yesterday, I actually thanked God for the favour. I promise to stick to the guidelines of Wikipedia completely irrespective of anything that comes my way in the future. Darreg (talk) 11:59, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've just been blocked [wrongly!] and I am deeply affronted. I am very inexperienced and it has taken me twenty minutes to find this way to contact you, but I am furious.
Kindly explain why my IP 79.64.58.17 was blocked along with whatever it was.(New Tricks TV episodes)
You ought to take better care of decent people trying to improve Wiki; this is Draconian and either the structure is all wrong, or you have made an error or you are just plain a nasty person. What?
If you look at the block notice, it will show that the IP was blocked, not your account directly. I designed the block so that users who were logged in could edit without restriction. Because the block is a checkuser block, I can't elaborate on it due to our privacy policy. Please note that such blocks are not made unless they are necessary to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia. While we hope that you won't leave, if you choose to do so we respect that decision and wish you the best in your future endeavors. Best regards, Mike V • Talk20:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the bad behavior yesterday. Thanks for removing the block. You won't have any more problems from me - that is a promise. The comment to NBSB was inappropriate and I sincerely apologize for causing you and the other admins any problems. It was an off-the-cuff remark made in jest. Looking back I can see how it could construed as an insult/harassment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:8B40:CC20:4944:6CBD:BE69:44BE (talk) 23:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As promised - account created!
Mike, as promised, I created an account and have now logged in. I very much want to edit constructively and help wikipedia. I am also curious as to what my next steps should be? Are there any articles that need fixing/editing? I am happy to assist with grammar/punctuation cleanup if need be, or adding/creating content in whatever area most needs it. As I said, I am here to help and appreciate the second chance. Msjjkim (talk) 01:15, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On ACC: blocks affecting schools and simple vandalism
The criteria for ignoring is 'Rangeblocks or single IP blocks affecting schools can be ignored only if both are found to be true[...]' I'm a relatively new ACC user, so I'm wondering whether the fact it's schools is relevant in dealing with this guideline. Take request (Redacted) - was there evidence that the IP was a school that I missed? Thanks NottNott|talk21:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First, welcome to to ACC team! Looking at that request, the IP was blocked using the {{anonblock}} and the block was over a week ago. Thus you can ignore the block and handle it normally, as per this part of the guide. (The same applies for schools blocks over a week old.) Of course, if something seems off and you suspect something, leave a note in the comments and the CUs will take a further look. Hope that helps. Let me know if you have any other questions. Mike V • Talk22:14, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just thought you may be interested in the small army of SPAs at that page who are working in tandem, removing CSD tags ([2][3]), trying to strip out advertisements in an effort to keep the article, participating in the talk-page discussion (and agreeing with one another) and at AFD, etc. It gives me a headache just looking at it all, and I was wondering if you thought it was worth pursuing further. Thanks for your help! GABHello!21:56, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Inappropriate, inappropriate and premature closure of ANI discussion
I strongly object to your closure of the ANI discussion involving me, which was open for little more than than 48 hours, and after an initial burst of activity showed substqntial, well-reasoned objections from highly experienced users. Many of the comments were informed by malice rather than policy or guideline, and reflected an underlying dispute over the mistreatment of new users by aggressive speedy deletion taggers. It went undenied in the discussion that far, far more uncivil comments directed at me, even in the instant discussion. As administrator, you are required to weigh guideline and policy, not merely count !votes. I also note that your abrupt action prevented me from posting a response I was in the process of preparing, documenting that point more extensively, since several posgters simply denied the significance of it. It should be absurd to note that one of the administrators who criticized my alleged incivilities had only a few weeks ago declared that comments directed at me like "bigoted, puritanical, and culturally myopic" were "not offensive". The double standard here is pretty rank, and responsible, honest people should not lend their name or support to it. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:54, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should be happy with how that turned out. Did you notice that many users were calling for a block for the behaviour you have already engaged in? A lot of people are telling you that your behaviour is problematic, I think you should start recognizing that instead of constantly denying it. HighInBC15:08, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think that there is a great deal of hypocrisy going on here, and that your comments reflect it. No one has denied that my comments do not come close to rising to the level of incivility that has regularly been tolerated in other discussions, directed at me and at others. It's also a conspicuous example of that hypocrisy that users simultaneously argued that SiTrew's allegedly valuable contributions should be balanced against his own civilities and deliberately false accusations, but that my more extensive history of valuable contributions should not be. Apparently there may be a segment of the community which is willing to excuse unabashed and malicious lying, but punish a level of brusqueness which is easily tolerated in the real world. That is an opinion I would be ashamed to hold. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:19, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to be traveling for a few hours in a few minutes. I will draft up a more thorough response and post it when I have connection to the internet. For now, I stand by the close and believe another administrator who closed it would come to a similar conclusion. Mike V • Talk15:34, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to the closing time, I believe it was appropriate. Sanction discussions should be open for at least 24 hours. This discussion was open for approximately 63 hours and the most recent comment was nearly a full day ago. It was also open long enough for you to respond to the interaction ban and so a clear consensus could be determined. I’m not convinced that the time of my closing prevented you from posting a response, nor that it would have been significant enough to change the consensus of the discussion. Looking at your contributions today and yesterday, you evaluated articles for speedy deletion, participated in article for deletion discussions, and engaged in discussion with other users. I believe that if you wanted to respond to additional comments, you could have done so during this time period.
As the closing administrator for this thread, I was only evaluating the arguments, evidence, and policy presented in this instance for this issue. If you feel that there are other users who are acting inappropriately towards you, you will need to initiate your own dispute resolution. This may include opening a separate AN/I thread, undergoing mediation, or simply informing the users that you do not appreciate their rude comments and ask that they refrain from making them.
I read through the comments a couple of times before I closed the discussion and felt that the discussion established a consensus to enact an interaction ban. A number of editors felt that the comments made were insults, that the insults were unwarranted, and that they violated our civility policy and our no personal attack policy. I considered the opposing comments as well and only a couple of individuals felt that an interaction ban was excessive. There were a number of users who explicitly stated that the conduct was inappropriate and warranted a warning. A few even suggested a block for the present behavior. After considering all sides, I felt a warning to cease that behavior was appropriate.
In addition, I evaluated the quality of the comments that were made and factored that into my decision. I disregarded Bosley John Bosley’s comment because it did not contribute constructively to the discussion and did not present a valid argument. DuncanHill’s comment was given little weight because it was not a very good stance. Whether or not there was merit to his claims, another user’s inexperience or behavior would not warrant inappropriate comments and/or actions from another user. Clubjustin should have provided evidence of the personal attacks he claimed to have received. This would have helped the community determine if he was correct or not and if they did occur, gauge the severity of the comments.
As for your oppose, I was not swayed very much by your rationale. It did not address much of the comments and evidence that was presented. You side-stepped the discussion by talking about previous comments targeted towards you and (erroneously) claimed that these comments are permitted. (As noted above, you should engage in dispute resolution or seek remedies against users who engage in such behavior.) The discussion about notifications and replying to discussion threads was not taken into consideration in any fashion because it was irrelevant to the issue that was raised.
In regards to the links of ANI discussions you’ve posted from 2010 and 2011, first and foremost if you felt they were mishandled, that should have been brought up years ago, not today. (e.g. Making a post to AN along the lines of “I have raised some concerns about a particular editor. However, I don’t believe that my post is receiving the attention that I believe it requires. Could any available administrator take a look and assist me in resolving my concerns?”) Second, I must note that how previous threads are handled do not have any bearing on how sanctions are handled today. We don’t use old ANI threads as precedent.
I feel that I’ve adequately addressed all the comments and concerns that you have raised. If you are still not satisfied with my rationale, you are welcome to ask for a review of my closure at AN. If other administrators feel my close was inappropriate and view the consensus differently, I would be open to letting someone else make the final call. Mike V • Talk19:12, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think not. You have fundamentally misinterpreted one of my central points. I have argued that, for several years, and rather consistently, as recently as a few weeks ago, comments and invective hurled in my direction, far more uncivil in nature, have been treated as within the bounds of allowable discussion. Your conclusion that this amounts to "sidestepping" anything is simply wrong. It defies logic for you to deny that "these comments are permitted" is incorrect: they were permitted; users who made them were not sanctioned, and rarely if ever even warned. The statement that old discussions are not "precedents" may be valid but that is not important: they demonstrate consensus, unhappy as that consensus may be in your eyes, and disregarding established consensus to facilitate adverse action against an individual user simply demonstrates willingness to support wikilynch mobs. It reflects poorly on your suitability to resolve such matters. Again, I urge you to reopen the discussion and allow me to me to make a more detailed response, since you plainly did not properly understand my brief statement. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 20:19, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hullabaloo, I think Mike V was generous in his closing. What you're arguing here is, still, a variation on WP:OTHERSTUFF. Even if we are incomplete or inconsistent in our enforcement of incivility, that is not a license to go ahead and unleash like you did on Simon Trew. As I said in the thread, I understand frustration, but there are proper and improper ways to respond. The diffs given were examples of improper ways, and rather than apologize for them or try to make up one way or another, you argue that it's OK to insult people because you've been insulted as well. Drmies (talk) 00:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You've beaten me to it. Definitely him. Clearly matches the POV / disruption continued plus the current IP [6] is from the same region, Swindon, as the one I reported at SPI [7]. --lTopGunl (talk)17:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You missed to block this IP which i mentioned in the SPI. He's back to socking with it [8]. Same geolocation as above. Thanks in advance. --lTopGunl (talk)15:17, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's recently a huge edit warring on the Vietnamese Community of Wikipedia.
User:MiG29VN have engaged on a lot of topics and seem to use the same Accounts on the English Wiki. I recommend to update the current on going Investigations.
Mike V- Perhaps you could take a look here? Bizarre coincincidence, but just noticed that R. hasn't edited since that morning! Guess it will all make sense to you though. Cheers, FortunaImperatrix Mundi14:07, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The messages that I placed here and here direct the users to the IPBE talk page. I think the link is sufficient for both proposals, but you're welcome to add a message below my original notice here. Best, Mike V • Talk22:07, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You recently gave the That man from Nantucket an indefinite block, when it was determined it was a sockpuppet account. But you only gave the master a one week block.
I have spent hours, in the last couple of days, trying to AGF, and not let my interaction with TmfN escalate into edit warring. After learning he or she was a sockpuppet I am very resentful of the hours of wasted time I spent responding as if he or she was a clueless newbie, who deserved AGF. It now seems as if all their accusations, threats and IDHT were pure bad faith.
Mike, I see you just adjusted the block on That man from Nantucket. However, unless there is something beyond what's appearing on-wiki, it appears that the last use of the original account was two months ago, and as explained on User talk:That man from Nantucket, that may have been inadvertent.
Hi, NYB. I left my comment there before I saw the message here. Feel free to post here (or there) if you wish to discuss it further.
Hi Geo Swan, I understand your frustration. Usually an indefinite block is granted when there is significant sockpuppetry (multiple accounts) or if the user is very new and shows no signs of positive contributions. (e.g. vandalism, BLP issues, and/or highly disruptive editing) If a user continues to engage in sockpuppetry, the blocks will escalate in duration, eventually leading to an indefinite block. I hope the issues don't resume, but I'll keep an eye out and do my best to take of it if it does. Best, Mike V • Talk01:02, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you
… for this, which got the job done. However, just my 2p, I don't think the behaviour of Music10-user is remotely similar, so that could perhaps have been a false positive? I'd stupidly forgotten that there was already Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alec Smithson, but I've now filed there for the record. Is there any mechanism for dealing with global socking? Thanks, regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:46, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the technical data, the accounts shared a couple /16 ranges and had a similar user agent. The previous Alec Smithson accounts are stale, so I can't make a technical connection. (Which is why I haven't tagged the account.) Requests to globally lock the account across the whole project can be made to a steward here. Mike V • Talk14:51, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your block of EEng
After your warning ("conduct concerns") on User talk:EEng, EEng posted this response. He also made a few innocuous edits on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images, but I'm sure your block had nothing to do with those. You blocked for his response to your warning, and I don't think that was reasonable. The response wasn't very polite, indeed. It didn't defer to you as admin. The worst of it was that he changed your header, which is certainly inappropriate. But was it a disruptive edit, enough reason to block? No. Mainly it was an explanation of his criticisms of Bbb23. It didn't contain any personal attacks against Bbb23 or anybody else AFAICS. I intend to unblock. Bishonen | talk21:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
I’m writing to you regarding the WP:SOCK investigation against Tiroth. Once a decision was finalized by Vanjagenije on the investigation[[9]] and a ban[[10]] was issued, I posted a note the next day on the B5 CCG’s talk page[[11]] regarding any future disruptive edits on the aforementioned subject matter and that they would be either removed or deleted. The following day you moved the investigation[[12]] to archive[[13]] and this was immediately followed by a new IP[[14]] reverting the edits on the subject matter and furthermore an edit I made on a different page[[15]] where citations were needed. My main question is where do I add the disruption by the new IP[[16]], at the investigation[[17]] page or the archive[[18]]? Thank you for any assistance. --[[User talk: Slave28|♪ℓ☮⚔☭ⅩⅩⅧ]] (talk) 00:34, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this was a proper rede of the situation [19]. If you actually look at WT:Stub, you'll see it's clearly a WP:1AM situation, with Lugnuts, confused and unable to clearly articulate what he's on about, against everyone else, and revertwarring with no rationale after multiple editors have said he has no rationale and needs to give it a rest. His noise about the matter was completely derailing productive discussion which was actually on-topic (what to do with CSS, etc., to potentially improve the layout). If you're going to be an RFPP admin, please (especially before templating people and threatening them with blocks) take stock of the ground truth of a situation, don't just look to see if two people have reverted more than once and hit them with the same hammer. Not everyone is a nail. There's a difference between a revert with a rationale, backed up by other editors, and a revert on a "WP:IDONTLIKEIT and you didn't get my permission" pseudo-basis. Especially when an entire month of discussion has produced nothing whatsoever supporting the latter's position.
Plain WP:COMMONSENSE applies here, too: When the discussion was intended to focus on technical improvements, but the troublemaker is attempting, in a WP:FILIBUSTER and WP:WINNING style, to use that discussion as a smokescreen to keep re-adding pointlessly vague and confusing wording that others object to for multiple reasons, there is only one editor causing an actionable problem. I mean, seriously. Just skim the discussion. Lugnuts is (very literally, unmistakably, and pointedly) accusing everyone who doesn't agree with him of being in a WP:TAGTEAM and a WP:CABAL, which is clearly a WP:AGF/WP:CIVIL problem, and evidence of a WP:COMPETENCE issue. People are not productive collaborators here if any time they don't get the inexplicable thing they want, they start screaming "conspiracy" and pointing fingers at people. Editors working to keep a guideline usable and stable should not fear to approach a noticeboard when one seems called for. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 03:15, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:3RR applies to almost all situations, regardless if the reverts for the "right reasons" or not. There is no difference between a revert and a revert with a rationale. If there is a broader issue between you and Lugnuts, perhaps you should seek dispute resolution or additional input from a request for comment. Reverting the edits over and over will not solve the issue. Mike V • Talk14:05, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't transgress 3RR, so you're not responding to anything I've raised here; this is known has handwaving. There is no issue between Lugnuts and me at all; I've never encountered the editor before as far as I can recall, and we have had no interpersonal exchanges. Two people disagreeing about something on one page does not mean there's an interpersonal problem for which WP:DR processes needs to be set in motion. Instead of looking for excuses to duck questions or criticism and try to deflect it back onto the person raising concerns, please start taking it at face value and do a bit of self-analysis about your admin approach. I note above that even other admins are coming here with concerns, and undoing your heavy handed "hammer" tactics elsewhere (which similarly appear to be predicated on reactiveness without introspection). It's time for you to take a step back and re-evaluate.
PS: multiple editors reverting the same 1AM behavior from a single party is quite effective and a normal part of WP editing process, and it has in fact worked just fine in the case at hand. The vast majority of boneheaded edits to guideline pages are dealt with this way. Someone insists they are right and tries to force their view, without consensus for it and in the face of objections, on a page that has serious site-wide consequences, and the headcount of objectors to what they're trying to do goes up the more insistent and combative they get about it, until they get the point and stop. Business as usual, standard operating procedure. You can't change how WP works by going around threatening everyone with blocks because they reverted something twice, more than a day apart, based on actual discussion on the talk page. Your understanding of WP:EDITWAR is faulty and needs revision. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 23:02, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Attempting to filibuster me at Requests for permissions in retaliation for having the stones to disagree with you in ways you can't rebut is simply proving the point that I, Bishonen, Izkala, and others have been raising about your administrative judgment. Having the mop is not license to throw your weight around and take a "Brotherhood", bad-cop approach. Admins are not granted immunity from criticism or scrutiny. The tools are something you're entrusted with, so it isn't going to serve you in the long run to erode that trust more and more at each opportunity point. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 15:14, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) Wow... "WP:3RR applies to almost all situations, regardless if the reverts for the "right reasons" or not. There is no difference between a revert and a revert with a rationale." Sorry Mike, but no. Although I understand they probably don't apply to the situation at hand, there's actually a significant list of "right reasons" to go beyond 3RR (WP:3RRNO). In addition, when claiming such an exemption, it must be said explicitly in the edit summary. Thus, 5RR without a rationale is never acceptable, while 5RR with a clearly-explained valid exemption is appropriate (and encouraged). While, as I said, these nuances might not be particularly relevant to this specific situation, that's not an excuse to misrepresent policy. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉16:05, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I qualified the statement with almost. I'm aware of the exemptions, but the number of situations where they are invoked are quite few. The vast majority of edit wars occur over non-BLP exempt content issues. Mike V • Talk16:47, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted article
Hi there I recently started a article or whatever you might call it when I tried to access it, it said you had deleted it. I realize that there were some links that might have been offensive but the article was satire and we'll I was hoping you might undelete the article.I don't know if you can do that but I'm really hoping that you can and I would really appreciate it. Keklord911 (talk) 04:38, 30 May 2016 (UTC)Andrew Farman(aka Keklord911)[reply]
Since the page was an attack toward someone else, I'm not be willing to provide you with a copy or undelete it. Please note that such pages are not permitted on Wikipedia and creating similar pages will likely result in a block of your account. Mike V • Talk14:07, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Pizzaandchips11: Thanks for starting a discussion. I think the best course of action for you is to find those sources and present them on the article talk page to the other users. That way, everyone can review them and make sure the sources verify what is claimed and that they are reliable enough to be included. If that's the case, you can gain consensus on the talk page to include the material and after doing so, the changes can be made. Mike V • Talk21:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The page i was making was not an attack on someone.
Hi there again. The page I was making was not an attack on a person.The person I was making the page about,Ethan Dean, asked me to make him a wiki and he told me to be ridiculous as possible. Now I don't expect you to believe about what I'm saying but you can even ask him yourself. His snapchat is thgtrolleater.
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 remove this notice 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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
I saw that. The duration of the block is simply because it's likely a dynamic IP. If the user continues with additional threats, we can revoke talk page access. Mike V • Talk23:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Passengerpigeon: Yep, they definitely were socks of Starship9000. Recently, the user has been trying to "claim" that the socks belong to other users, as I'm sure you saw here. (1, 2) The user has even gone on to tag their socks with other socks. (3) Best, Mike V • Talk16:46, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fountainball Page
I am attempting to make changes to a page I originally created that was removed. The page was removed for not having a credible claim of significance which I believe we can now meet.
Hello, Mike V. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Do you see what I see?. Message added 02:41, 15 June 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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Looking at the revision, I don't believe that it is excessive enough that it requires the removal from public view. It's appears to just be general vandalism. Mike V • Talk15:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The community has placed limits on what may be hidden through the use of revision deletion. The criteria prohibits the removal of ordinary incivility or personal attacks. Mike V • Talk15:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is not grossly insulting or degrading. It is just one word inserted into a redirect. This is for material that excessively violates our BLP policy or is an extended tirade of abuse towards an individual. Mike V • Talk15:40, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For providing the community with the information needed to make an informed decision about TheREALCableGuy's unblock request I award you the Barnstar of Diligence. HighInBCNeed help? {{ping|HighInBC}}14:36, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you blocked User:Dorpater [22] as a sock puppet of indef blocked User:Lokalkosmopolit. He's back [23]. I filed an SPI but since he's not even pretending to be someone else I'm not even sure if that's necessary [24]. I was actually going to ignore him as long as he stuck to making minor edits but sure enough, he jumped right back into the controversy [25], [26], [27], [28], [29]. They already managed to get got blocked for edit warring [30].Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone should be blocked, then this is Volunteer Marek who keeps blindly reverting my constructive edits, bordering on 3RR. I fixed linking, he reverted it [31]. Having read in the article on Dmytro Korchynsky a controversial statement, I checked the source linked in Ukrainian, saw that the article indeed contained faulty claims, so I fixed it. VM keeps blindly reverting to the inferior version [32], [33]. 77.93.29.14 (talk) 02:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:3RR: The following actions are not counted as reverts for the purposes of 3RR: ... Reverting actions performed by banned users in violation of their ban, and sockpuppets of banned or blocked users.. So reverting you is not edit warring. And if you really wanted to make constructive contributions then you should've thought of that before getting yourself banned for stalking and harassment, then for sock puppeting, then for sock puppeting again, then for sock puppeting AND harassment, then for sock puppeting again and so on.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah but he leaves group 3 to other checkusers. Despite they are confirmed socks, their IPS are not related to group 1 and 2. Probably due to using proxies. Can you please check? 46.221.198.228 (talk) 15:46, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't leave the analysis to other checkusers, and proxies aren't an issue. Group 3 is independent of Tirgil34, and the behavioral analysis needs to be done within the group.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:03, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
46.221.198.228 and MikeV - Have MikeV's talk page on my watchlist and saw this. Encountered an account recently that might be related? Contribs here. I am unfamiliar with this sock, so thought I'd check. I suspect the linked user is a sock given that they dug up code for a table from 3 years ago... EvergreenFir(talk) Please {{re}} 15:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@EvergreenFir: Hmm...I am not sure about this user, since i did not check his contributions. However, i am dealing with an annoying sock making unrelated and ridiculous comments on the SPI page. 46.221.198.228 (talk) 16:02, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@NeilN:, @JamesBWatson: it would be nice, if you also take a look at the SPI case. This puppet show should be stopped. Additionally, @Bbb23: i think i have provided the behavioral evidences with diffs on the SPI case. And note that we are dealing with a long-term abuser who has been socking about 5 years with countless sock tricks in order to escape SPI. See LTA. So, please be less conservative regarding the case. Best regards...46.221.198.228 (talk) 16:49, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
help, pls
sorry for spelling & brevity, typing fr phone - i'm abt to get TBAN'ed due, in part, to !votes generated by the sockmaster who has been targeting me for the last 6 months; u'v previously dealt with it here [34] - can you pls expedite a look at this [35]? i promise 2 apply for a WP:RENAME soon so he/she can't continue tracking me but just need a little help in interim - thx LavaBaron (talk) 00:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI, the page I nominated for CSD that you just deleted and blocked was also the subject of an email to OS regarding CHILDPROTECT. Not sure if you saw that. Just wait to let you know. EvergreenFir(talk) Please {{re}} 02:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 • Talk00:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 • Talk03:12, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
fixed. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
—UY Scuti Talk 18:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC) Edited --18:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Confirmed. Thanks for passing that on. Mike V • Talk 00:12, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Unrelated. Hope that helps. Mike V • Talk 00:59, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
