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.


User:Jytdog[edit]

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)

RevDel[edit]

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)

Suspiciousness[edit]

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]

Mail-message-new.svg
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]

Mail-message-new.svg
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.
Mail-message-new.svg
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]

Mail-message-new.svg
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)

Karamjeet[edit]

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)

Atcurrent[edit]

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)

Philipandrew2[edit]

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)

YGM[edit]

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

The edit summary doesn't appear to be offensive enough that it would require removal from public view. This would fall under the category of ordinary incivility. Mike 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, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Xenophrenic#Bill_Ayers_has_been_labelled_a_.22domestic_terrorist.22_by_the_FBI. He, and others, are trying to sanitize article Bill Ayers of a source citing the FBI as identifying Ayers as a "domestic terrorist". I realize that such a label is contentious, and is a WP:BLP issue, but a statement by the FBI is significant, and should be sufficient to be cited in article Bill Ayers. Also, please check wP: Dreams From my Father: Perhaps the reason that the label placed on Ayers is so significant is that three years ago, Ayers himself admitted to being the ghostwriter for "Obama's" Dreams from my Father book, after it was noticed by numerous people that Ayers' and DFMF writing styles were so similar. Naturally, this looks quite embarrassing to an Obama-supporter. 216.161.88.111 (talk) 18:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

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

I've blocked the same range for 1 month. Mike 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)

209.242.141.60[edit]

209.242.141.60 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

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

Thanks for pointing this out. I've verified that port 8080 is accessible as a proxy and hard blocked it. Mike 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 en.wiki, there is a criteria that needs to be met before granting IPBE. You can email me if there are privacy concerns. Best, Mike VTalk 19:57, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

202.45.119.0/24[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 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Centipede92&oldid=732899207 thanks! --Laber□T 20:39, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't believe that meets the criteria for revision deletion. Mike 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)

188.29.165.29[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 217.40.202.110, 188.29.165.29 and 93.97.50.89 (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 117.234.212.172 (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)

KatorseNiAmang[edit]

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)
Hi again Mike V. I think Special:Contributions/180.190.78.200 might be another sock. First edit was to add two files just uploaded to Commons today by Anitnovic2016. There's no reason for an unrelated IP who has never edited to add two files just uploaded to Commons to a fairly obscure article. Moreover, there's no reason for an indefinitely blocked editor to upload such files unless they were planning to add them to the article. Only other edits made by the IP were to files uploaded by KatorseNiAmang and a to add a file uploaded by Anitovic2016 to an article. Please advise on how to best proceed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:27, 1 September 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]

Mail-message-new.svg
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)

@Marvellous Spider-Man: Please see WP:ADMINSHOP. You have sent several emails to admins about the same issue. Bbb23 already informed you to file the SPI, which I see you have, but you contacted myself and other administrators like BethNaught. Furthermore, I already looked into the AFD when it first opened as you requested on my user talk. Mkdwtalk 05:12, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
@Mkdw: I didn't contact BethNaught about this issue, it was about a different case, you can ask Bethnaught. Thanks. --Marvellous Spider-Man 05:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Then that merely brings down the number of admins you contacted about the same issue from four to three which still places well within admin shopping. I suggest you stop trying to wikilawyer yourself out of the facts of the issue and adhere to the heart of the advice and not the technicality. Mkdwtalk 13:36, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
I've replied to your email. To everyone else, the email was not regarding an AfD. Mike VTalk 22:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Mike. The email I also received was not about the AfD but included links to places you and some of the others had already replied. Mkdwtalk 16:17, 30 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)

It's still going on today, at User:BaronBifford/sandbox, here. despite another editor having reverted him earlier, and at Superman ownership disputes, where yet another editor has just reverted him. Maybe these two articles need semi-protection? I've gone to User:BaronBifford's talk page to ask him to please stop, but he made a weird, inappropriate reply. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
I've deleted the page and blocked the /64 IPv6 range for 3 months. Mike VTalk 22:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you sincerely. Multiple editors were having to take time on this. It was extra work for you because of the block evasion, and Im sure I speak for the rest when I say we appreciate the extra effort you put in. With thanks, --Tenebrae (talk) 22:34, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
No problem at all. I'm glad to be of help. Mike VTalk 22:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for semi-protection[edit]

Thanks for changing Gene Wilder to semi-protected. Pending changes was a nightmare. -- Fuzheado | Talk 20:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Administrator Barnstar Hires.png The Admin's Barnstar
Thanks for changing Gene Wilder to semi-protected mode Fuzheado | Talk 20:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! Mike VTalk 22:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

ACE 2016[edit]

I wanted to give you a heads up that I've started prepping Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016. I plan to start posting notices tomorrow, and wanted to give you a chance to make changes as you created the last two. I didn't see anything that really stood out as needing a followup from 2015 feedback, so I tweaked that bit, and unless you have anything, will just start it without specific topics to discuss. Monty845 00:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

188.29.164.0/23 Block[edit]

That address range has been allocated to Hutchison 3G UK Limited (http://ipinfo.io/AS60339/188.29.164.0/23). You have just blocked all the 3 Mobile phones from editing Wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.130.209 (talk) 18:30, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I think you misread the block template. It states that Masti (a steward) blocked the IP address and that I have locally unblocked it on the English Wikipedia. Best, Mike VTalk 19:51, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Block evasion[edit]

Dan Mathew, probably of User:Saatvik.Jacob Material Scientist, see [1]. Muffled Pocketed 07:19, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Glad to see it was all sorted out. :) Mike VTalk 16:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Taokaka/Archive[edit]

I just blocked Huxian (talk · contribs), who used the same IP as MeowMoon (talk · contribs). Maybe there's some paperwork to be filed, etc.; you're the last person on the SPI so I figured I could stiff you with it. :) Drmies (talk) 03:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Paperwork filed. I demand a raise! Mike VTalk 16:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Next round, you're the first one. Drmies (talk) 16:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail![edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, Mike V. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 10:58, 20 September 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.

Marvellous Spider-Man 10:58, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Possible IPBE requirement[edit]

Hi Mike V; in August you helped User:TJH2018 when they were caught in a webhost block. They are again encountering the same issue (see UTRS 16530). Will the solution you came up with in August work again, or do we need to look at IPBE?--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:05, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Hey Ponyo! When I talked to the user on IRC, I was told by the user that he or she was able to edit unobstructed after a while. No blocks were adjusted. If he or she is still encountering an issue, perhaps IPBE might be something to consider. Mike VTalk 19:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Ok, I'll take a closer look. Cheers! --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi all! Just got back online...The way my school's IP works is that they use an external service to filter web traffic, which in theory is great. The downside is that it uses AWS to route all the school's web traffic through the filter. @Ponyo: Thanks for resolving the issue, as I was trying to find a new way to waste time in class :) TJH2018talk 20:20, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Depending on he class, you may be better off on Wikipedia. (Shhh, don't tell Drmies I said that!).--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:35, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • No worries. I have no idea what y'all are talking about. Drmies (talk) 01:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

‎Starbucks6789[edit]

Are you able/willing to identify the sockmasters of ‎Starbucks6789 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and Dsajlksdlkjaslkjfa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)? I've been watching them and suspected a few (namely Thestarborn1028 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)). Just curious. Ping me in reply please. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:11, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: They're two distinct users. Dsajlksdlkjaslkjfa made a number of throwaway accounts with similar random strings of letters. (e.g. Dslkjfdslkjfdsalklkjfdsaqw (talk · contribs) ) I can't connect Starbucks6789 for you, as I found it linked to an IP. Unfortunately, Thestarborn1028 is stale. However, the behavior looks very similar and I would be willing to say that there's a likely behavioral connection there. Mike VTalk 20:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! Just curious for future reference in case they return. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Easy4me range block[edit]

Hi. I'm having a bit of trouble with a sock you've twice range blocked, 68.33.88.0/21. The first time was at this SPI and the second was in a previous section on your talk page. This is Easy4me (talk · contribs), who was blocked for disruption to film articles, mostly budgets. Though he's been active again on this range, I've been trying to ignore him to reduce drama. However, he's still making disruptive edits, such as this edit, which removes a citation. It wouldn't be so bad (he replaced it with another one) except that the film's budget was also derived from the removed source. In this edit and this edit, he replaces one unsourced value with another. This careless approach to sourcing is what got him blocked in the first place. Could you institute the range block once again? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:34, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I've anon only range blocked the /21 range for 1 month. Mike VTalk 20:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection[edit]

Padlock-blue.svg Hello, Mike V. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.
Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration workshop edits[edit]

Hi Mike V,

I've amended one of the diffs in you proposed finding of fact linked above as it pointed to a different motion rather than the one it suggested it should be linked to. Due to the impending closure of this section of the case time seemed critical. If this was intentional please feel free to revert (linking to this statement so you don't get told not to revert the clerks). Amortias (T)(C) 12:29, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

@Amortias: Thanks! I must have copied over the wrong link when I was preparing the workshop proposals. Mike VTalk 13:39, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail![edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
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.

Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} 20:07, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Replied. Mike VTalk 20:14, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

My talk page[edit]

You are instructed not to post to my talk page ever again. – Gavin (talk) 18:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

What a spectacular display of incompetence. Congratulations; even I didn't think you'd stoop that low! Still, your actions speak so much louder than words, so I have no real need to comment further. CassiantoTalk 19:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppetry — Imminent77[edit]

Hi Mike V,

I am finding the actions of this user to be very odd. Using the warning templates and reverting/reporting vandalism doesn't seem very normal for a new user to be doing. I'm not really sure who the master could be if any socking is involved here. If you think that this behavior warrants a CU check, could you please give this one a quick look? Thanks. 2607:FB90:A452:9E80:0:3F:C908:DA01 (talk) 19:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


Update: The behavior looks very similar to this user. 2607:FB90:A452:9E80:0:3F:C908:DA01 (talk) 19:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@2607:FB90:A452:9E80:0:3F:C908:DA01:I am unsure of how helping revert vandalism in the recent changes makes my a sockpuppet. I had some time so I read up on how to properly revert vandalism and notify the people and spent some time trying to help. --Imminent77 (talk) 19:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Your recent block of User:SchroCat[edit]

I have some concerns about this block. Per WP:ADMINACCT, can you begin by explaining to me what the block was for? Thanks a lot.--John (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, The block was made for persistent disruption and uncivil behavior. I warned SchroCat multiple times that the conduct he was exhibiting was inappropriate and advised him to stop. However, SchroCat continued with this behavior. I provided specific diffs on his talk page and they can be viewed on the page history. (They were shortly removed after I posted my message.) Best, Mike VTalk 20:34, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I see you warned him at 18:15 on 26 September, in relation to posts he had made at AN/I. He made no further posts at AN/I. He removed your warning with an angry edit summary, asked you at your talk not to post there again, and then you blocked him at 18:42. Was the block for his edit summary, for removing the warning, or for the post at your user talk? Or is there some fourth thing he did between the warning and the block that I am not aware of? --John (talk) 20:46, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
You may have missed it, but there was an earlier warning with additional diffs. The block was for the cumulative edits and comments left in the edit summaries. I was not concerned with the removal of the warning, nor the request made on my talk page. I'm dismayed to see that SchroCat has continued to his express himself in a less than constructive manner. (1, 2, 3) I see that you've contributed to the review of SchroCat's recent FA nominations. Perhaps a friendly discussion with someone whom he's on better terms with may help? Mike VTalk 22:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps. So, when you say "The block was for the cumulative edits and comments left in the edit summaries", and you had warned him twice, the only subsequent edit between the final warning and the block was the edit summary here. So this single edit summary was what took him from a warning to a block? --John (talk) 22:34, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
It's not much different from how other policy infractions are addressed. If a user edit warred, created vandalism, or inserted unsourced material, was warned multiple times to desist with such behavior, was advised with the most recent warning that persisting would result in a block, and still continued, I don't see how it's unreasonable to issue a block. In this case, not only was the edit summary disruptive, but it showed that SchroCat did not recognize the fault in his behavior and that he would persist. (I will continue to comment as appropriately as I have before ...) A block was issued in an effort to prevent further disruption and uncivil remarks. Mike VTalk 23:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I share John's concerns that you over-reacted. Your block appears to have exacerbated the situation, causing at least three editors to retire and one FAC to derail. How was a block a net benefit to the project in this instance? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 06:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

My worry is that by blocking an editor whose only edits since his last warning were to your talk and to his own, you have reacted disproportionately. Was the level of disruption to the project as a whole caused by a rude edit summary on the user's own talk page really sufficient as to require a block? Please think carefully about this before you reply. --John (talk) 08:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Ritchie333: By three editors and one FAC, I assume you are referring to SchroCat, Cassianto, and We Hope and the Burke and Hare murders FAC? If so, I don't believe that's an accurate conclusion. Cassianto and SchroCat indicated that they planned to stop editing more than two weeks before the block at the FAC. Surely you must have seen this when you commented? We Hope made a similar statement on the same day as the other two. As for the FAC, I don't see how my block impacted it. I just looked it over and the FAC seems to be moving along swimmingly. Mike VTalk 16:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
John: The behavior extends beyond the talk page. As I noted with the quote above, SchroCat intended to continue the same behavior on ANI, which, as I'm sure you know, is a widely viewed and edited page by a significant number of contributors and viewers of the encyclopedia. When such comments are directed towards multiple individuals and in a well-frequented forum, it has a reasonable impact on "the project as a whole". Mike VTalk 16:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Mike V for answering my questions. So you blocked him for the intention stated in the edit summary to continue to edit at AN/I in a way you found disruptive, although he had not actually done so. Would you repeat this if the situation were to recur? Would you continue to take admin action in regard to SchroCat if he were to return to editing here in the future? --John (talk) 16:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I had seen the retirement notices but I hoped I would have time to talk to them off-wiki in order to persuade them not to retire, but I have not had that time.(I don't like saying what I was doing per WP:NOTADVERTISING) For what it's worth, I have had a quiet word in the past with both Cassianto and Schrocat via email when they have overreacted a bit and they've been amenable. Charging onto a talk page (which, after all, is publicly visible to everybody) saying "Knock it off" to somebody whose already upset is a bit like pouring gasoline on a fire, in my view. Just my thoughts. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I've already explained my rationale for the block further up. If there was another instance where an editor was informed multiple times that their contributions were disruptive and contrary to our policies and said editor continued to exhibit such behavior, I don't see how it would be unreasonable to follow a similar course of action. Mike VTalk 00:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for answering the first part of my question. Now, the second part was "Would you continue to take admin action in regard to SchroCat if he were to return to editing here in the future?" If you could see your way to answering that part too you will have discharged your obligations under ADMINACCT. Thanks. --John (talk) 06:13, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
If the community's policies were violated, SchroCat was given the opportunity to correct his actions, and he continued to violate the policies, it would be reasonable to take administrative action. Mike VTalk 14:49, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
And of the 1293 admins, you would be the best placed to take that action? --John (talk) 15:23, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
If other admins wish to assist, they are more than welcome to. Mike VTalk 16:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Mike V, I said already I thought the block was heavy handed, and Ritchie has agreed with me. I'm not unsympathetic to what you did and I have probably done the same myself in the past. I appreciate your openness to discussing your actions here. If this was me nowadays, I think in a case like this I would not block for incivility against me while I was placing a final warning (venting is generally tolerated on one's talk page to some degree) but if I felt a serious threat or personal attack was made I would ask another admin to look to see if blocking was required. I am not sure this would have risen to that category for me, but we are all different. Blocking someone who has just insulted you may give the impression that the block is a personal slap for the insult, rather than a considered measure to prevent disruption. Likewise, in a case like this I would not block for defiance, but I would wait for them to cross the line in the sand you have drawn. Finally I would make the line in the sand really clear, by using unequivocal words like "final warning" rather than schoolyard language like "knock it off". I certainly don't intend to take this any further, as I don't think this minor one-off misjudgement would merit it, but it would be satisfying to think you had undergone some self-reflection as a result of this. I am sorry to see SchroCat go, but I agree that his behaviour needed to be challenged. I just would like to have seen it done in a way that wouldn't have led to his retirement from the project. Can I cordially request as one admin to another, that another time you would ask me for support rather than block the person who has been defiant? Perhaps you would do the same for me. All the best. --John (talk) 21:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

User:The GratefulSlick[edit]

I'm very surprised at the decision to block this editor. In my experience he (I assume it's "he") does a first-rate editing job, across a wide range of articles (including music articles where I have most often encountered him), and I'm not aware of any problems to do with their contribution history. If there is any clarification you can give of the reasons behind the block - or if there is any evidence I can offer in their support - please let me know. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:37, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Great catch on thegracefulslick. It makes total sense. He and ALongStay puppet were AFDing multiple articles and damn near always in agreement. I respect you for your integrity and fair play. 2607:FB90:76F:6093:1E65:1AF3:24FB:164B (talk) 13:49, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Hi, Mike, there's not much information about the CU-block of User:TheGracefulSlick in the log, nor on their page. I'd be interested to know the particulars. The user who suggested here that they're a sock of ALongStay presumably meant the other way around, as TGG is the older account. Even so, it would be pretty surprising, as ALongStay has been repeatedly warned for attacking Garagepunk66, who is a friend of TheGracefulSlick. Also, I rather wonder whose sock Drinkandtype (talk · contribs) is. The known sockmaster CrazyAces489 (who hates TheGracefulSlick) comes to mind. Anyway, obviously not a new user. I'm tempted to block them for trolling, malice, and block evasion, but if you want to CU them first, I'll hold off for that. (After edit conflict) Oh, and now I also wonder who the IP above is. Bishonen | talk 14:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC). P.S. On second thoughts, I've indeffed Drinkandtype. They're not here for any good, whoever they are (my money is on CrazyAces). Bishonen | talk 14:25, 30 September 2016 (UTC).
It is amazing how TGS was an enemy of ALongStay and later they alternately work together to AFD articles from CrazyAces489. They speak in a similar manner and work in a tag team. The devious manipulation of being an enemy and later a friend of Garage punk - ALongStay . Going as far as defending an article he had previously nominated for deletion is quite interesting. Tgs is a high school kid who is gaming the wiki system for his own amusement 2607:FB90:76F:6093:1E65:1AF3:24FB:164B (talk) 14:14, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
And you're CrazyAces. Blocked. Bishonen | talk 14:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC). P.S. again: another admin got there a minute before me. Bishonen | talk 14:25, 30 September 2016 (UTC).
Replying here as well, just in case. Drinkandtype is  Confirmed as CrazyAces.  No comment with respect to IP address(es). I know for certain that ALongStay is  Unrelated to CrazyAces. The technical data is vastly different. I've sent an email to the functionary team to request a CU or two to comment on the block. Mike VTalk 17:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Mike, and you too, User:DoRD. I was sorry to hear the result, but I appreciate the careful way this has been handled. Bishonen | talk 20:01, 30 September 2016 (UTC).