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.
Page semi-protected
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.

Sockpuppeting on a page?[edit]

Hi there!

I think people are sockpuppeting the page ( ) again, and when I revert it back to the way it was, the sneaky buggers tried to accuse me of sockpuppeting (see; the user in question; )

I think they're the same person as Lank Mayer, Averscrst and Boltself. Can you look into it?

--Kitsunelaine (talk) 06:11, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Just letting you know that the CU team has looked into it and blocked some of the related accounts. Mike VTalk 16:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Riggiran117 new account[edit]

Blocked user has a new account Dunannil117, which similar with the last three numbers "117". Mostly are similar focus for OneRepublic and Maroon 5 editing. (talk) 02:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

New sockpuppet of blocked user IvanOS[edit]

You blocked user IvanOS and his sockpuppet FDrago77. Now IvanOS created this new sockpuppet two days after you blocked his accounts:

See that account Latinus3 continued revert warring of blocked account FDrago77 in several articles

Article Lovćenac:

Article Kruščić:

Article Karavukovo:

There are also same edits of these two accounts in several more articles: Banatski Dvor, Kljajićevo, Banatska Topola and Bačko Novo Selo.

So, please block this new sockpuppet and also consider extending block to original account of IvanOS from 6 months to permanent block because it is obvious that corrective measure of 6 months block will not improve behavior of this user who created new sockpuppet just two days after his accounts were blocked. Thank you very much. (talk) 09:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Please Unprotect Zaky Mallah[edit]

Not sure why this was ever protected. A few bad edits is not a good reason. Protecting is for edit wars, gross slander, etc. And deserves an explanation on the (what was empty) talk page. Hiding edits is an even higher bar.

There have been major issues around Mallah which are producing a large queue on the talk page. If you insist on protecting this page then you need to do the work and keep it updated.Tuntable (talk) 23:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't really the protecting admin per se, rather, I converted the template protection to full. (Longhair was the admin who protected it originally. He protected it for addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content.) The revision deletion was permitted because it was offensive, unsourced content on a BLP. Mike VTalk 00:19, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Did you really mean to add indefinite full protection? --NeilN talk to me 18:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I only changed the template protection to full protection. I left the duration unchanged. I have no preference on the length, though it may be best to talk to Longhair before you make any adjustments. Mike VTalk 18:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


Hi. At Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jaredgk2008 you actually archived two reports, one of which was still open and awaiting CheckUser. I hope it's OK that I've restored that one and I haven't trodden on any clerks' toes or anything. Mr Potto (talk) 16:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

No problem at all! I thought the SPI script would archive just the closed portion, but I guess it did it all. Thanks for catching that and restoring it. Mike VTalk 16:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Yea, the SPI Helper script is notoriously bad when there is more than a single "active" case, unfortunately. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  16:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Cool, thanks. Mr Potto (talk) 16:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

RE: Conduct[edit]

It would be uncivil of me to tell you exactly what you can do with your warning, so I'll just tell you this: You're "warning" to me has been filed in the trash without my digestion and I shall treat it with the contempt it deserves. Also, I would care for you not to post at my talk page again as you are most unwelcome. CassiantoTalk 17:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Further warnings are not needed for this user. They have had several in the past, it is just that they remove them from their talk page. Chillum 22:44, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Why don't you take heed of your own advice Chillum as per this edit summary. CassiantoTalk 22:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I was talking to Mike, as a fellow admin talking about admin stuff. Chillum 22:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Bullshit. You were talking about me and as such, I have a right of reply. As far as I can see you have absolutely nothing to do with this thread and you are getting involved when it has nothing to do with you. Your advice to me was not to do that, so why are you doing the same? Please, go troll somewhere else. CassiantoTalk 23:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppet_investigations for Jonh-Los[edit]

Hello Mike! Could you elaborate a little on this Sockpuppet investigations/Jonh-Los being on-hold? The behavioral evidences were not enough to you? Thanks Sedai2014 (talk) 11:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand what happened. I put the case on hold asking Mike to comment. I have no idea whether Mike's even had an opportunity to look at it.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:07, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
got it.Sedai2014 (talk) 15:41, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

FDrago77 (and IvanOS)[edit]

Can you have a look at this again? Whilst I completely appreciate they were tag-teaming, FDrago77 is appealing their block with such passion that I do wonder about it. And there's that 6 second gap I mentioned below. Black Kite (talk) 23:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC) (Copied from archive)

  • Before the SPI was opened, I looked at these two users. What stopped me opening an SPI myself was their edits on 1 June, which involve quite a bit of editing at the same time. For example, this and this were six seconds apart. I realise that he/she could have been editing from two different devices but that'd be unusual behaviour for socks and they were close enough that I thought I'd mention it anyway. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 20:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Based upon the technical evidence, combined with the behavioral evidence, it still seems likely that they are sock accounts, if not certainly meat puppets. Yunshui did his own analysis and came to the same conclusion. Also, shortly after the close of SPI case I found Latinus3 to be a confirmed account of FDrago77. That account was clear cut: same ISP, geolocation, and UA data. In light of socking after the block, I'm less inclined to believe him. Mike VTalk 01:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Please unblock Cassianto[edit]

You blocked Cassianto for personal attacks for that, Mike? For responding intemperately to the "I am not a massive fan" vandal, who has been IP-hopping to harass many many users with that same silly phrase? Are you serious? Please unblock. Bishonen | talk 15:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC).

Not solely for that edit. There have been a number of personal attacks and uncivil comments since the previous block, including: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Mike VTalk 15:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
This is pretty pathetic Mike V. Blocks like these do nothing but waste time. Do you think Cassianto is supposed to learn his lesson from this?♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Dr. Blofeld while you are welcome to dispute the validity of this block please do so in a civil manner. Chillum 16:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Most of those diffs happened nearly a week ago. So obviously your block was for the recent thing. Admins are supposed to quietly deal with site problems and diminish trouble, not cause it. Pointy blocks like this do more harm than good. Cassianto has been developing the Michael Horden article in his sandbox, one article I'd be very keen to see at FAC once done. A week's block is disruptive to progress on here and achieves nothing but smug satisfaction on your part that you got one over on him.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:50, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Another admin has made a reasonable request of you on Cassianto's talk page and pinged you in the process; you have been active since that request and ping. At least have the good manners and grace to your fellow admins to reply to them when such a reasonable request is made. – SchroCat (talk) 18:50, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


Hi Mike, I semi-protected your Talk page for reasons that are obvious from the history. I didn't bother blocking the many IPs. Hopefully, the person just hates you. :-) Anyway, feel free to shorten, lengthen, or elminate the protection. Happy Upcoming Fourth!--Bbb23 (talk) 20:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that's fine with me. If you're in the States, happy Fourth to you too! (And really, ASCII art? I didn't know that was still a thing... ;-) ) Mike VTalk 21:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
You're right. I don't know where you're from. You disclose less about yourself than I do. Actually, other than it being a day off, which is always nice, the Fourth is a dangerous holiday, what with people using fireworks illegally and getting injured or injuring others. Noisy too.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)