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.

Moroccan genetics[edit]

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

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

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


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.

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

Rm talk page privileges for suspected sock IP[edit]

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

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

September 2015[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.

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

Your close of SPI for Brad Dyer[edit]

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

The editor is unblocked now. Kingsindian  04:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I came with the same question. CU was declined because the editor was blocked but that is no longer the case. Liz Read! Talk! 11:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
To clarify, I didn't decline CU. I only closed the case because at the time the account was blocked and the SPI case was a a moot point. Now that the account has been unblocked, the concerns can be re-raised. However, I can't act on evidence I haven't seen. I believe there are two options on how to proceed. You can follow up with HJ Mitchell, who seems to be the point functionary you've contacted. If he feels the private information is enough for a block, he can take care of it. The second option is forwarding the evidence to the functionary team list. ( We can evaluate the evidence presented and if a check is found to be possible and justified, we'll run one. Best, Mike VTalk 15:20, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


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

Thank you[edit]

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

Thanks! You too! Mike VTalk 00:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Software glitch?[edit]

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

(talk page stalker) Your two diffs above are identical.--Bbb23 (talk) 07:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, fixed the link in-place. ;-) --AmritasyaPutraT 08:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Certain rights changes are made by stewards and listed in a different place. If you look at the top of what you call "this log", you'll see that mentioned along with instructions on how to show those rights changes. Following them, you get this result. It's a bit confusing, but I hope that helps.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


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

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


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

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

Quick CheckUser requests (Teahouse questions)[edit]

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

I wouldn't say you were wrong. The case would have been better off with an SPI due to the number of accounts. SPI quick requests are usually for IBPE, blocking IP/ranges for a spam account, etc. I just dug through the contributions and found enough for a check, that's all. If you set the template to close, the bot will archive it in a few days. Mike VTalk 01:10, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Does a "done" status cause it to archive sooner? "Done" seemed wrong to me because it sounds like I did something in response to the request, but I'm curious how the bot works.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:13, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, I don't know if the bot was respond differently. If I had to hazard a guess, I think it just operates solely on the case closed parameter. Mike VTalk 01:17, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

Thank you![edit]

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

You revdel'd something @ Gaither High School[edit]

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

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

SPI archive[edit]

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

  • I think after histmerging two case archives (which puts the archived cases of the merged-in archive in the top revision), Mike tried to grab the merged-into archived cases from history to paste them back into the top revision, but he must've grabbed the wrong old revision and re-added archived cases that were already there. I've now fixed it all up, I think, but Mike you're welcome to review it and make sure I did okay. :)  · Salvidrim! ·  14:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
This is the second time I've seen this happen in recent days so it must be an easy mistake to do. I know that when editors unarchive material from noticeboards, discuss it and rearchive it, the archive often ends up with two versions of the similar content. Liz Read! Talk! 15:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of that Salvidrim. It looks good to me. Mike VTalk 21:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Take a look?[edit]

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

Look at the Talk page of user:VinWeasel

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

Anyway, have this for fun:

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

Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case proposed decision posted[edit]

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

Weird stuff (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MadMans1019)[edit]

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

I've purged the cache of the case, WP:SPI and the SPI/Case/Overview table, and made a null edit to the case. The bot removed the case in its latest update. I don't have a clue what the issue was. :p  · Salvidrim! ·  16:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Interesting. At least it's gone now. The SPI that refused to die.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
It's back.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:12, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Fine now. Maybe my null edits a la Salvidrim! just took a bit longer to take effect. Or maybe it's Mike's fault; aren't these all his archivals? :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 17:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

unblock ipv6 request[edit]

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

The post above was made by Najaf ali bhayo (see SPI), i.e. the same person who was using the Facebook-IPs... Thomas.W talk 09:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
I've blocked for 2 weeks given the widespread abuse. The IPv6 address has been misused by a number of individuals so it's not going to be unblocked anytime soon. Mike VTalk 20:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Block evasion related to Ridryman sock case[edit]

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

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

In the past, these other IPs have been involved:

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

I've soft-blocked for 1 week. Mike VTalk 21:37, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. It sucks to block an editor from making good-faith changes, but block evasion should not be ignored. Binksternet (talk) 22:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

User rights changes[edit]

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

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

User rights changes 2[edit]

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

I just ran a check on your account and it appears that you aren't affected by any blocks that would require IPBE. Please note that editing through a proxy is only permitted in exceptional circumstances. Best, Mike VTalk 01:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
The block is for, which is a huge portion of AS25847, and it is indeed affecting my account since I work from Definitely not an anonymous proxy. Could you kindly reconsider? Opakapaka (talk) 13:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC) is allocated to Servint, which is a web host. Unfortunately, it has also been abused by others so I won't be able to unblock it at this time. Mike VTalk 23:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry block requests[edit]

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

I still would recommend posting at SPI. It helps keep all the accounts at a central location. Usually the cases with straightforward socking and/or strong evidence are expedited. Mike VTalk 23:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Okay, thanks Mike, I'll do that next time. Robin Hood  (talk) 05:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Dani de santa[edit]

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

You asked for it[edit]

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

Possible mistake[edit]

Please see here. Could this be a mistake? Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd be very surprised if that was the case. The behavioral and technical evidence that I saw seemed very conclusive. Mike VTalk 20:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Behavioural too, okay. Dear oh dear. Okay. Many thanks, my friend. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:24, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Why on earth are you starting time ranges at 00:00?[edit]

It just invites confusion. Is it the start or the finish of the day. It's absurd. Tony (talk) 14:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. I believe that it makes it more clear by giving the exact time. To my knowledge, we've always used the range of 00:00 - 23:59 UTC to denote the time of the day on Wikipedia. (After all, I've never seen a post signed with 24:00.) Also, it's the exact time we use to compile the eligible voter list, when the nominations open, and when voting begins. (As opposed to using 00:01.) Mike VTalk 16:09, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Exact time is any time you say it is. Why do you persist with 23:59, then? You seem to hope that anglophones (many of whom are not very familiar with the 24 h clock) will instantly understand that 00:00 Thursday is the midnight at the start not the end of Thursday. 00:01 and 23:59 are standard—when I co-ran the ArbCom elections two years in a row, that's how it was done, after prior confusion. The WMF elections are done that way. Why are you being so resistant to a simple correction that will speak clearly to everyone? Tony (talk) 04:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Nice timing: someone else has complained. Tony (talk) 12:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Mike_V, although I did not notice this at the time (when ACE2015 first got documented), and although I think Tony's verbiage is needlessly aggressive, the substantive point is correct: the best way to minimize hypothetical confusion, is to start all phases at 00:01 UTC, and then document it as such. In other words, don't just say that the timespan is from 00:01_Z on the Xth thru 23:59_Z on the Yth... actually make those the start-times (exactly 00:01:00.000 zulu) and the cutoff-times (exactly 23:59:00.000 zulu). Make sense?
  p.s. There is actually a story about Teddy Roosevelt, and a pocket veto, or something like that... timespan #1 ran until noon on a certain day, and timespan #2 went into effect after noon on that same specific day, so TR wrote up an executive order that was dated for exactly noon... and thus was subject neither to the former piece of legislation, nor the latter piece of legislation.  :-)     My thanks for doing the arb-election-work, appreciated. And p.p.s. for the current year I don't think switching everything from 00:00 to 00:01 is productive, I'm just leaving you this note w.r.t. the procedures used in ACE2016. Best, (talk) 21:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Currently the timestamp at Special:SecurePoll says "00:00, 7 December 2015" which is slightly different from "23:59, 6 December 2015" ... should one wish to be pedantic, that is.  :-)     Those literally-last-minute votes could just swing the balance of the election!!111!!  ;-)     Presumably this cannot be adjusted whilst the vote is actually open, without risk of gumming up the works, but I will leave this note here anyways, so that next year somebody may remember to exactify the timestamps so that we can all synchronize our wiki-watches, or whatever cliche you prefer. p.s. On another matter of ease of use, can the table of elections at Special:SecurePoll be sorted in *reverse* chronological order? Right now, the 2009 election is at the top of the table (albeit greyed out), and the currently-open ACE2015 election is at the bottom. It might also help, if you put an intro sentence saying to "Please click the blue Vote link next to the election you wish to participate in." Thanks, (talk) 14:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


Why was the check on Jack the Vicar run? NE Ent 23:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Evidence was submitted to the functionary list that strongly suggested that JackTheVicar was a sock of ColonelHenry. There was enough evidence to perform a check for a technical connection and to check for additional accounts. The technical evidence further bolstered the claim and I blocked the account. I'm currently compiling the on-wiki evidence that I can present publicly to the community. Hopefully once that's done it will provide some insight into the matter. Mike VTalk 02:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


Hi, Mike. This case with the Colonel/Jack is so messed up that I don't want to get involved any further. I'm fairly confident you know everything I've seen and likely more, so there is nothing more I have to add that could possibly help. Good luck with this case. Viriditas (talk) 02:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I understand. I just wanted to make sure that we were aware of every aspect. Best, Mike VTalk 02:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Arbcom election[edit]

Hi. I've made my nomination and I've cleared my browser cache but I'm still not showing on the list. Have I missed a vital step somewhere? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The last step is to transclude your statement to the nomination page. I've done that for you here. Best, Mike VTalk 11:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much :) --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

You've got mail![edit]

Hello, Mike V. Please check your email – you've got mail! The subject is Re: [Accounts-enwiki-l] [ACC #155461] English Wikipedia AccountRequest.
Message added 07:43, 18 November 2015 (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.

UY Scuti Talk 07:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I've replied to the email chain. Mike VTalk 01:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


I don't know how or where to lodge an official complaint, but the questionaire about their candidacy that Tony1 is demanding all candidates by email to complete is inappropriate. It is intended for full publication in Signpost during the election and there are no offers to opt out. The questions require candidates to reveal information that they chose to withhold in their nominations or chose not to reply to the users' questions. I think the candidates have been subjected to enough interrogation and attempted breaches of discretion already. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't lie, Kudpung. Tony (talk) 10:32, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Could you forward me the email? Mike VTalk 14:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
(commenting in my volunteer role, if that wasn't clear) That's a pretty ... interesting interpretation of the questions that I saw, and it's far from unprecedented: Board elections 1, 2, FDC elections 1, 2, and Board elections 3. To the best of my knowledge, no one else objected to similar lines of questioning for any of these five articles. Best, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't really see a particular problem with it. The SP has run similar things multiple times before without complaint and simply not responding seems like a reasonable way to opt out. Or simply replying in the requested 75 words "I prefer to decline to complete the scoring you have requested." Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Here's my thoughts: I don't see why the questions couldn't have been posed to the candidates on-wiki. The candidates would have the same opportunity to respond or opt out. I would strongly discourage using a default value if a candidate chooses not to respond, especially when it's in the middle of a 1-7 scale. A neutral response is not the same as not answering. (e.g. If 2 candidates respond with a value of 1 to a question and 21 opt out (resulting in a value of 4), the "average" appears to be 3.74). I would have also clarified how the data would be presented. Would it be anonymous, aggregated, or directly linked to their account? A number of the questions need more elaboration than just a numerical value and a couple of sentences. For example, "The WMF should take more responsibility for managing issues related to editors who are minors." (I'm assuming you're referring to protecting minors against predators and not, say, oversighting underage editors disclosing their personal info.) I believe it's a fair assumption that most editors (if not all) would encourage the Foundation to do their best to protect minors. However, the Foundation likely requires a higher burden of proof before OFFICE banning a user. I'd bet that it would have to stand up in court and definitely prove that the individual is linked to the account and the alleged inappropriate action(s). If they even get one instance wrong, that's going to burn up a lot of legal's time and donor money to resolve a defamation of character lawsuit. The amount of time that it takes to compile, verify, and present this information speaks to why there's a delay between when the issue is reported and when a ban is enacted. Also, there were questions that carried an inherent bias. For example, instead of saying "We saw ArbCom at its worst in the way it handled the Gamergate case." it would have been better to word it more neutrally, "I was satisfied/dissatisfied with the way ArbCom handled the Gamergate case".
With all that being said, I don't think there was malicious intent here and there isn't any need for warnings, sanctions, blocks, etc. I would encourage the Signpost editors to consider an on-wiki approach for transparency and to review the questions that are asked and how they are asked. Mike VTalk 01:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Remember that you have no scope in making editorial decisions for the Signpost. That is the role of the Editorial Board. Nor was the Board's permission sought to forward a private email. If you want to play a role, inquire about it with the editor in chief. Otherwise, please stick to your role in running the election. Your opinions concerning that private email are beyond your scope (and possibly your skill-base). Actually, it's pretty impudent to be publishing information related to the private email: I suggest you remove it. Tony (talk) 01:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
First, please do not remove constructive comments from others on my talk page. (Kevin's) Second, my comments on the questionnaire were in my personal capacity, not as an Election Commissioner. It was my hope that you would take into consideration these comments to improve upon your coverage of the election. In regards to your polling methodology, there wasn't a proper symmetry in the questions being asked and the extreme questions will likely lead to a central tendency bias. Finally, I would appreciate if you could avoid making assumptions on my skill-base and using a condescending tone in your replies to me. Mike VTalk 02:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
As EIC, I would like to publicly state my concurrence with Tony here: we made a deliberate editorial decision to handle this coverage the way we did, as we have with many major elections before (as per Ed's links above). No candidate is required to participate in the survey, but for many voters who do not have the time to pore through long question pages, this is a helpful "reader's digest" snapshot of the field. With that said, we would appreciate you respecting our editorial prerogatives thereof, and not prematurely publishing the questions we asked, which we will contextualize for readers in our upcoming edition. Thank you, Go Phightins! 02:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Adding my concurrence here, again in my volunteer capacity. I don't think Mike's thoughts were malicious, Tony, but I do think that they were far out of scope of his official role--and while I assume he commented in his unofficial capacity, he was approached by Kudpung in his official capacity. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Mike, Likert-scale propositions are meant to be expressed with high certainty so that respondents can scale themselves against them. Please ensure that you understand the process before making accusations of "inherent bias". Tony (talk) 02:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Tony1, please see my longer reply below, but in short, how can Mike (or anyone for that matter) understand the process, since we cannot see the process, here on-wiki? (talk) 21:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd like to see a list of the questions, if someone is willing to forward it to me. (got one, thank you) --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Mike you are welcome to share any concerns you have with questions privately via email, but I would appreciate if you would remove your comment about the question regarding GamerGate until we publish our story. Contents of a private email should not have been leaked publicly without the permission of the sender. Go Phightins! 03:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Mike V, first you show astounding ignorance of questionnaire construction and statistics. Second, you seem to confuse appearances of acting in your official and private capacities; that poor management of COI appearance is a serious failing for someone running an election. Third, you seem to think it's just fine to publish the contents of private emails without permission or warning. It's the height of arrogance (and I've seen glimmers of this in your prior behaviour). You are not showing yourself to be fit to be involved in running the election. Tony (talk) 03:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
      • That's ... suboptimal, Mike. All I've seen before from you (and/or interactions with you?) has been positive, but as I implied above, you were asked a question in your officially elected capacity. To reply in your personal capacity is extremely deceitful. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I know there's bit of a pile-on here, and I'm sorry about that and about the tone of some of the comments here. I understand why you might want to be defensive and dig in your heels. But think about what you're doing here: you're posting excerpts from a private email that you received in an official capacity. To do such a thing in a personal capacity is inappropriate as well, but your claim that you did it in such a capacity is not consistent with Kudpung's post above, where he clearly indicates he wishes to make an "official complaint". I'm sure your intentions were good, but this was a bad call. Gamaliel (talk) 04:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

  • This is a strange definition of "private email": sent to 18 people, by an organized Wikiproject (or however you want to think of the Signpost) with the results to be published. I'd actually call it a public email, with direct and obvious public effects, that is inexplicably being hidden from view. Again, I'd like to see a copy of it. (got one, thank you) --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Do emails become public based on the number of recipients or the contents of the email? What about either of those facts makes it appropriate for someone acting in an official capacity for the encyclopedia to reveal the contents on the encyclopedia? Private emails should not become public simply because someone comes up with a justification, that's not an appropriate call for someone in an official capacity to make. We shouldn't throw out the rules and mores governing how people are supposed to handle private email simply because you don't want to wait a couple of days to read the questions when they are published in the story. Gamaliel (talk) 14:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
If we're just going to play word games, and confuse assertions with facts, then I can do that too: Public emails do not become private just because someone calls them that. And my motivations don't become lame and shallow just because you choose to assume that for a rhetorical flourish. But this interaction has helped me decide who to vote for, so thanks for that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
You're right, I've read my comment again and in my last sentence I favored glibness over assuming good faith, and I apologize. I was tempted to let this pass and not comment lest you think I was vote grubbing, but if I was interested in being political I never would have jumped into this conversation in the first place. I don't think people's motives are the point here, whatever they are, positive or negative, well-thought out or shallow. If you want to talk about word games, how does an email sent privately using the private Wikipedia email system from one private user to another private user become defined as public by someone acting in an official Wikipedia capacity? Because that's the crux of the issue to me, not claims of transparency or whatever people's motives are for violating the rules. Gamaliel (talk) 15:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Kudpung has a point. A couple of these questions seem pretty leading to me, to the point where if I was a candidate I'd consider not answering them. But with the scoring system imposed, refusing to answer a dumb question results in a number that implies you partially support a dumb thing. Since I don't want to muddy the issue by freaking out the Signpost Editorial Board and using a real example from their secret email, let's say one of the questions was "Do you support torturing kittens?". If Kudpung, or any candidate, thinks that's a stupid question and refuses to answer, his response is going to be reported as a 4 (Don’t know or can’t decide). If you guys are OK with me using one of the actual questions, let me know and I'll swap it out for this example.

Working out bugs like this *before* you just publish the results is a good reason to publish the questions online ahead of time. Some people think ArbCom does too much work on their mailing list, and some don't think that, but at least ArbCom has a rationale for keeping some of it out of the public eye. What possible reason does the Signpost Editorial Board have for not just publishing the questions? In the mean time, poor information is worse than no information, and I'd suggest candidates not answer any of the questions under the current setup. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

This is a discussion worth having. Are the questions loaded or do people not understand how Likert scales work? Should the Signpost have crowdsoured the questions? Should the Signpost have asked for public input beforehand? Perhaps that is what they should have done (I say they here because I played no role in these decisions this year), or perhaps that is something we should try next year. There are good arguments on either side of these issues, I suspect. But these are separate issues from the appropriateness of an elections official revealing private email sent to him in his official capacity. Gamaliel (talk)
How can we see if the questions are loaded, without being able to see the questions? Similarly, how can we judge if the statistical methodology is being applied correctly, without being able to see the methodology? My question is not merely whether the signpost should crowdsource the questions, but rather more fundamentally, why isn't the special report being worked on here, on-wiki? Why are the questions being composed and selected and elided, off-wiki, is just the first question... why are the questionnaires being sent quasi-privately-slash-quasi-publicly via email plus {{ygm}} template-spam, why are the results being analyzed off-wiki, why is the draft-article being written off-wiki, and why is the editing of said final-article being done off-wiki? The regular arb-report column is on-wiki already, for instance. I do fully understand that there are probably technological reasons for all this, related to ease of capture/processing/charting the questionnaire-data, and wishing to avoid accidental publication of buggy data, and perhaps proprietary software is involved. It may also just be a cultural artifact, of covering board elections and such (where not all the participants are most comfy with on-wiki-everything style). But for an arbcom election, the overall effect, the appearance to the untutored eye of an outsider (or indeed to the wiki-eyes of an insider), is like a case of poor civic hygiene. So! To wash our hands of poor civic hygiene... errr, to short-circuit the gordian knot... well, or whatever horribly mixed metaphor you prefer... is there any reason that all the questions, and all the answers received so far, cannot be published on-wiki, now, or ASAP? I understand that the signpost prefers to keep their scoop under wraps, but I also see this as a PR problem going forward, in future elections of various sorts. Transparency is good, and the appearance of non-transparency is bad, even when nothing untoward is happening. Doing all the work on-wiki, is the Right Thing, methinks. Does this make any sense? (talk) 21:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • To address a few points raised, I do not recall a detailed discussion on how to handle/score candidates who do not answer a certain question, and obviously, if a candidate refused to participate in the survey, we would not simply publish a list of "4s" next to their name. That is something we would discuss, but based on our past experience -- again, see the links -- response of this nature has not been common. And to reiterate, candidates do not have to participate in the survey. It's just that, a survey. Participate or don't, but this is the framework we are following this year. Go Phightins! 17:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure the Signpost ought to be preaching about "private email". If you're approaching someone for comment for publication, then your questions are surely no more private than the answers you get. The Land (talk) 13:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • If anyone wants to forward me the email, I will happily post all the questions onwiki. Here's a hint, unsolicited email is not private. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • As one of the recipients of the survey, I have to say it's a fairly lousy piece of work. The Gamergate quoted above is an egregious example: one could disagree for two rather opposite reasons -- because one feels the decision was good, or because one feels it was bad, but others were significantly worse. The inflexible responses here from Signpost staff are enough to convince that this survey was not properly thought out and is not likely to be appropriately presented. Floquenbeam's comments are particularly well-taken. My decision to respond to the survey, in light of what's been said here, was not well-advised, and I withdraw my response. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

another bambifan?[edit]

Does User:JUDYLWB IDOOV look familiar? --jpgordon::==( o ) 16:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Not necessarily sure if it's Bambifan, but it's clear the individual isn't here to edit constructively. Mike VTalk 23:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


Hi Mike - pinging you both because you were the CU involved and because you're an EC. Could you take a look as his comments on my questions page and either get rid of some of the more inappropriate ones, or respond yourself directly there? He's making it look to be as if all admin coordination offwiki is inappropriate, when if you remember the SPI we were in emails about a few weeks ago, I'm pretty sure you would've blocked me instantly if I posted the same info in public. Giano's questions are primarily motivated towards making me look bad since he dislikes the fact I've supported punitive measures against EC in the past, but I'm a bit worried his fantasies may distract some actual voters. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

kevin, I really think you need to calm down, you are getting dangerously close to WP:NPA and it would be a pity to see you blocked during your election campaign. Giano (talk) 13:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Asking an involved functionary to explain Wikipedia's policies to you isn't a personal attack. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:46, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Content Dispute, Please take a look[edit]


Your neutral opinion on the content dispute currently on-going at Hadith and Criticism of Hadith will be appreciated. The discussion thread is at: Talk:Hadith#Recent_cleanup_of_huge_chunks. The main issue is the material sourced from Wael Hallaq's paper, sourced from JSTOR, but is also available at:

Thanks. cӨde1+6 LogicBomb! 15:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3 closed[edit]

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

  1. All anonymous IP editors and accounts with less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This prohibition may be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of Pending Changes, and appropriate edit filters.
  2. Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to monitor the articles covered by discretionary sanctions in the original Palestine-Israel case to ensure compliance. To assist in this, administrators are reminded that:
  • Accounts with a clear shared agenda may be blocked if they violate the sockpuppetry policy or other applicable policy;
  • Accounts whose primary purpose is disruption, violating the policy on biographies of living persons, or making personal attacks may be blocked indefinitely;
  • There are special provisions in place to deal with editors who violate the BLP policy;
  • Administrators may act on clear BLP violations with page protections, blocks, or warnings even if they have edited the article themselves or are otherwise involved;
  • Discretionary sanctions permit full and semi-page protections, including use of pending changes where warranted, and – once an editor has become aware of sanctions for the topic – any other appropriate remedy may be issued without further warning.
For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 16:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Time to vote?[edit]

It looks like it's time to vote. Shouldn't there be a link on the project page to the voting page? Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes it is. I'm working out some of the minor kinks, but then I'll post notices on AN, the watchlist, etc. shortly. For now, if you purge an election page and go to the bottom where the ACE template is or go to Special:SecurePoll, you can vote through those avenues. (Be sure to click on the actual poll and not the test one. It should be apparent if you click the other one, though. :) ) Mike VTalk 00:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Pretty sure I just voted. Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Yep, I just checked the voting log and you are listed. Mike VTalk 00:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


I believe that User:Chelsea V V may be a sock puppet of User:Ranze. The Chelsea V V account was just created, is reverting edits on Ranze's talk page, and also vandalized an article today. Could you please look into the matter further? Crash Underride 07:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay, after a few minutes of thinking. I realize I don't have a lot of evidence at the moment. However, I would like the user to be watched so we can compare edits, style, etc. to see if it is Ranze under another account. Crash Underride 07:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I too considered reporting this, though we really don't have a lot to go on at the moment. It's very unusual for a new user to jump right into the conflict of a blocked user in their first edits, the fact that the user in question was blocked for sockpuppetry makes it more reason to be suspect. If we get a clearer picture I'll make sure to report it.LM2000 (talk) 17:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
@LM2000:, User:Chelsea V V has already been warned, by me for vandalism, and User:PeterTheFourth for WP:3rr also. Crash Underride 19:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Checkuser data between Chelsea V V and Ranze is  Inconclusive. I've blocked Chelsea V V indefinitely for the disruption. Mike VTalk 20:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Much appreciated Mike. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Crash Underride 20:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
User Chelsea V V has asked about a block notice on their page. And well you should see this edit to see the type of person they are. Crash Underride 20:07, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I caught sight of that edit. As for the substance of the edit, the block notice is provided to the user when he or she attempts to edit. As for the tone, well, any administrator would take that into consideration if an unblock is actually filed. It's best to not engage with such as person as the behavior will likely to continue. Mike VTalk 20:10, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not. I just have their talk page on my watch list so I can watch for edits such as that. lol Crash Underride 20:40, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

I would just like to offer my thanks for dealing with the ThorLives/Holtj sock puppet. It is appreciated. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:12, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Glad I could be of assistance. Mike VTalk 01:39, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


I do not take kindly to threats, especially from editors with apparent sub-optimal skills in grasping such concepts as Satire. You appear to be an administrator. That is satire enough in this context. Irondome (talk) 03:54, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I saw the edit you're referring too and I must say, Mike was right. Even on a user's page, that's still defamatory and well, against policy. Crash Underride 04:54, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
There has been a major misunderstanding...Lady Catherine is of course, User:Bishonen, who is a devout liberal. The Lady Catherine is the polar opposite satirical characture of Bishonen and that user guide is a satirical joke...and oftentimes provided opposite "advice" as to whom that character would vote for in real life. I'm also worried that Mike V has possibly exceeded their administrative rights by blocking one and warning another of a block while engaged in a content dispute claiming it as BLP enforcement. This block should be lifted immediately.--MONGO 05:54, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Flattery will get you nowhere, MONGO. Lady Catherine is most emphatically, and regrettably, not my sock. I wish the voter guide by my actual sock, User:Bishzilla (a devoutly liberal Jurassic creature), were half so zany! Bishonen | talk 11:12, 27 November 2015 (UTC).
Lady Catherine is not Bishonen! All of Bishonen's socks have "Bish" or "Fish" in their name...they are easy to spot. I thought everyone knew about this other editor's royal, satirical alter ego. Liz Read! Talk! 01:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


Mike V, I have asked for a review of your block of Jbmurray at AN/I here.--MONGO 07:33, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

MikeV - your block was sound. BLP applies everywhere. This is truly a sad day for wikipedia when an admin applies policy but gets reverted. KoshVorlon 12:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)