This user is a member of the Wikimedia volunteer response team.
This user has CheckUser privileges on the English Wikipedia.
This user has oversight privileges on the English Wikipedia.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.

User talk:Mike V

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome to my Talk Page!

Symbol support vote.svg
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.


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 VTalk 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 VTalk 03:12, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Attack account[edit]

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 VTalk 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[edit]

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 VTalk 17:16, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Checkuser check[edit]

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 VTalk 14:43, 2 July 2016 (UTC)


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 VTalk 14:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

What are you doing..???[edit]

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)


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

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

You've got mail![edit]

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 remove this notice 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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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[edit]

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.

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

Timothy Leary[edit]

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 VTalk 20:04, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail![edit]

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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

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


Hey Mike V.

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 VTalk 16:56, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! — JJMC89(T·C) 03:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


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 VTalk 15:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
That's interesting. Thanks for checking! MSJapan (talk) 16:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


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[edit]

‎Azad Balochi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit 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?[edit]

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 VTalk 02:22, 17 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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Miniapolis 14:57, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Replied! Mike VTalk 02:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Hide this edit summary[edit]

Hello, user: 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 VTalk 16:34, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Open investigation[edit]

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 VTalk 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[edit]

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.[edit]

I noticed your comment about Xenophrenic, 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. (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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

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

July 2016[edit]

Information icon 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[edit]

Hi. After Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Easy4me/Archive#06 July 2016, you range blocked for two weeks. Since then, (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", "The box office total has been changed."; Easy4me: "updated reviews", "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 VTalk 22:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

OTRS ticket[edit]

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 VTalk 17:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[edit] (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. (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 VTalk 17:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

IPBE on my account[edit]

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, there is a criteria that needs to be met before granting IPBE. You can email me if there are privacy concerns. Best, Mike VTalk 19:57, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[edit]

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 VTalk 19:57, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Mike. I've asked her about it. — JJMC89(T·C)

ACC related[edit]

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 VTalk 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 VTalk 14:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

revdel request[edit]

Could you please delete the edit summary at thanks! --Laber□T 20:39, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't believe that meets the criteria for revision deletion. Mike VTalk 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 VTalk 14:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom case on TRM[edit]

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

The contributions page for this IP says you've blocked it, yet it was able to make an edit today. I'm not sure what happened there, but thought you might want to know about this. The IP seems to be one of those used for sockpuppeting by some regular user - I think they're also using, and (and probably some others) for vandalism and various malicious edits. Stroller (talk) 11:14, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi Strolls, that message has always been a little confusing - the locally disabled section means Mike has disabled the global block (perfomed by Masti on meta) from applying to this Wiki. In simpler terms, the IP range was blocked from all Wikimedia Foundation projects, but Mike has stopped it applying here, therefore the IP is not blocked -- samtar talk or stalk 11:26, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation.Stroller (talk) 12:54, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
That being said, this recent edit suggests perhaps it could do with being blocked Face-tongue.svg -- samtar talk or stalk 11:27, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Some time ago we had a disagreement, under one of his other IPs, on the Akinwale Arobieke page, which he refused to discuss. He has a thing about blanking out complaints or discussion people make on the Talk Pages of the IPs he uses (example), so it's worth looking at the history for all those to see his full previous form. Here's another similar revert he made yesterday to get at me. As I recollect he makes quite a lot of snarky / partisan edits to the biographies of feminists, politicians and Irish republicans. Stroller (talk) 12:54, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Eric Edmeades AfD sockpuppets[edit]

Hi Mike V, thanks so much for identifying the sockpuppets in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Edmeades. Was wondering if you could possibly please also check (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which unlike the other IPs is not stale. Best, Citobun (talk) 15:57, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately as a checkuser I can't comment on IPs as per the privacy policy. However, I can say that I blocked all active accounts found on the IP address(es) used by the sockpuppets. Best, Mike VTalk 16:03, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
I understand, thanks! Citobun (talk) 16:16, 21 August 2016 (UTC)


Hi Mike V. I see you've blocked KatorseNiAmang for socking. I'm wondering about Anitnovic2016. It's a fairly new SPA account focusing on the same articles and types of images as the socks. Do you feel this is just a coincidence or is it a DUCK? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:37, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Yep, it's  Confirmed. Mike VTalk 17:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for checking Mike V. Do I need to add this editor to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ronald Galope Barniso? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Please advise[edit]

Greetings Mike V. I hope all is well for you and apologize for setting burden upon your hand; but I ask: please tell me, to the full extent policy governs, how you determined the blocking rationale for the user shown. I appreciate any insight you are willing to share. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 11:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I've blocked the account because it was a checkuser confirmed sock of another account and a behaviorally linked sock to a previously blocked user, as I noted here. Best, Mike VTalk 12:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, I understand. I recall seeing in the past an annotation in the blocking rationale where admins with the checkuser flag indicated that it was a checkuser block to show use of the additional tools. Are you averse to this form of annotation? Has the practice been depreciated? If not, will you consider including this information in future blocks where the checkuser permission was used in determining the user's block-worthiness? It would preclude some effort, like the asking and answering of my question; for example. Thank you again.--John Cline (talk) 13:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Personally, I like to use the {{Checkuserblock}} template in instances where technical evidence connects the account to a previously blocked/banned user or there are a significant amount of accounts that are connected together. In this case, I could only technically connect the two accounts to each other. The previous accounts no longer have technical data available because it has expired. Thus, the connection to the master account was solely on behavioral evidence. I've found it's helpful in future cases and the occasional block review to detail how the block came to be. If you wish for me to elaborate, that's ok. I truly don't mind. Mike VTalk 16:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail![edit]

Hello, Mike V. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 16:51, 28 August 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.

Can you please end their six years of socking (with sockpuppets and meatpuppets) once and for all. Thank you. --Marvellous Spider-Man 01:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Block evasion[edit]

I'm afraid User:Kurzon / User:BaronBifford is block-evading as 2A02:2788:1004:D53:C0BB:FF9A:8A08:CB42, 2A02:2788:1004:D53:9C70:7D4A:CCEB:3E8B, and mostly 2A02:2788:1004:D53:3518:166B:B7A1:9CCB at a Superman-related article, Superman ownership disputes , and at User:BaronBifford/sandbox. Since it's a dynamic IP, I'm not sure if it can be addressed, but "2A02:2788:1004:D53" is common to all. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC)