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.

Sockpuppeting on a page?[edit]

Hi there!

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

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

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

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

Riggiran117 new account[edit]

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

New sockpuppet of blocked user IvanOS[edit]

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

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

Article Lovćenac:

Article Kruščić:

Article Karavukovo:

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

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

Please Unprotect Zaky Mallah[edit]

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

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

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


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

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

RE: Conduct[edit]

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

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

Sockpuppet_investigations for Jonh-Los[edit]

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

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

FDrago77 (and IvanOS)[edit]

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

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

Please unblock Cassianto[edit]

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

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

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


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

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

Two more days. --NeilN talk to me 14:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Three more days. Somewhere up there (down there?) doesn't like you.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

COI violation[edit]

Hi Mike, could you instruct me how to correctly report an undeclared conflict of interest, now that it seems I did so in an unacceptable manner? This pertains to the topic of chronic fatigue syndrome. Cheers, The Jolly Bard (talk) 18:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I would recommend that you post your concern at the Conflict of interest noticeboard. Please be sure to thoroughly read the instructions and to not make any connections to a user's identity. Mike VTalk 18:23, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, but what to do if the only way to show the COI is to connect to a user's identity? The Jolly Bard (talk) 18:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Send an email to the functionary team, who can help with privacy related matters. Mike VTalk 18:43, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
OK, I'll do that. Thanks for your help. The Jolly Bard (talk) 18:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


Mike, just wanted to suggest that a long term abuse page be created for this user. There are a huge amount of socks, up there with a sock master I came across many years ago - JB186. JB has a long term abuse page, and IIRC it's creation helped shut him up. Jared made it clear in the last few days that he would continue to be disruptive. He also posted in the SPI when it was active through IP's that may have given away his provider - and I think they should be contacted and made aware of this being done on their service. One IP I suspect may be a proxy and I asked MaterialScientist to check it out. I'm not sure if he has or hasn't. Curse of Fenric (talk) 12:05, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

help! i've been blocked from editing[edit]

actually i don't understand ths reason why i ave been blocked and besides am beginner on wikipedia Mrsy peprah (talk) 08:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Have a good Holiday![edit]

Nothing else. -Badger151 (talk) 17:38, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

SPI/COI request[edit]

Greetings Mike! I was wondering if you could take a look at this Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sherlock4000 again. With the recent admission by this one user of their COI and the history of account abuse on these pages, I think it is reasonable to run a checkuser. What are your thoughts? DaltonCastle (talk) 00:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AshokaChadha[edit]

Shouldn't there be a link to the archive on this page? --NeilN talk to me 18:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

There is. :) The page just needs to be purged. Mike VTalk 18:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Why didn't you tag those accounts[edit]

you said this

"For starters, there's AlpacasRcoooool (talk · contribs), Phancylane (talk · contribs), and Champuraj (talk · contribs). Are there any other accounts you've created that you'd like to share with us? Mike VTalk 19:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)"

CE is blocked indefinitely for socking. Not a single account is tagged. Please tag them now. @NeilN: @Mar4d: .Thanks-- (talk) 05:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

You've got mail![edit]

Hello, Mike V. Please check your email – you've got mail!
Message added 21:25, 26 July 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.

Vanjagenije (talk) 21:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Email received. I'll look things over and will get back to you as soon as I can. (Things have been quite busy lately, both Wikipedia related and with work.) Mike VTalk 03:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Unblock request[edit]

Hello, Mike. There's an unblock request at User talk:Dominoooo's, which seems to relate to a webhost block that you placed. Can you have a look at it please, since I have no idea what the evidence is that it's a web host? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sportsnation213/Archive[edit]

Hey Mike--do you mind running CU on Dksports2014? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I've blocked two confirmed socks. As I'm sure you know I can't comment as to whether or not the IPs are involved. Best, Mike VTalk 17:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Request on granting IP-block exempt[edit]

Hello Mike! I'm running into trouble lately. I have security related concerns and am using VPN for other internet related stuff to maintain privacy. As you know it, I can't edit Wiki with open proxy. Could you please grant me IP-block exemption so that I can edit freely without any privacy concerns? Thank you. On a lighter note, I've sent a mail to the functionaries mailing list, but my mail was not approved by a moderator. Regards--JAaron95 Talk 14:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Your message was received by the functionary team and is currently being discussed. Mike VTalk 15:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the nimble reply! Regards--JAaron95 Talk 15:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Debora Mugica[edit]


That sock/meat farm has kept going after that original investigation was done. No one responded to my additional comments there (until you), so I took it to meta as this farm is also causing trouble on es.wikipedia. Here is the documentation of the whole story, there are more accounts involved: meta case. Nothing was done on meta either, so if you could help straighten out the stuff on enWP that hasn't been done, I'll coordinate the rest with esWP. Thanks, Vrac (talk) 02:06, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:48, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Request Use of Checkuser[edit]

Hi, BMK has accused me of sockpuppeteering the account CitySide189 on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Page under the section "help." I would like to clear up the accusation as many are being thrown at me right now so I request that you use the Checkuser feature to see if the IPs match. I give you permission but I dont know about Cityside. If you agree to do this, please post your findings on the "Help" thread on that section of the Admins noticeboard. Thank You The Editor of All Things Wikipedia 《Talk》 04:49, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Editor of All Things Wikipedia[edit]

I apologize for pouncing on this so quickly, but I raised another issue (another potential sockpuppet) shortly before the thread was archived. Would there be a way to reopen this? Thanks, North of Eden (talk) 17:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done I've reverted the archive so they may comment. Mike VTalk 17:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Might not be a sock[edit]

Hi Mike. I happened to notice that you put a block-note on the talk page of user:Studentaccountantghost4. Of course, I have no way to know what the block was based on, and it is obvious that the user is not completely unfamiliar with the ways of Wikipedia, but I wanted to make sure you were aware that the editor had (appropriately) warned another user against disruptive editing, and has self-identified as a college student (suggesting, but not proving, that any issue with the user's IP address may be attributable to it being a shared IP at a school).Etamni | ✉   02:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Etamni. While I do appreciate your concerns about the possibility of a shared IP and though I can't go into specifics of the technical data per the privacy policy, I can say for certain that the account is  Confirmed to Haunted331 (talk · contribs) and Dogs robes (talk · contribs). Best, Mike VTalk 05:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
No worries then. Etamni | ✉   05:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

IP block[edit]

Hi Mike, did you intend for this one to be indef? Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 07:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

No I didn't. Thanks for the catch. I've fixed it now. Mike VTalk 16:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


Mike, can you put User:MER HAYRENIK and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KunoxTxa together? Drmies (talk) 04:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Gogo Dodo, maybe you're interested in this too. Mike, is a rangeblock an option? Drmies (talk) 04:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Old sockpuppets[edit]

While randomly clicking from link to link, I ended up looking at four user pages created in (and not used since) Feb/March 2007. Three of them are clearly puppets while the fourth appears to be the sock-master (but could also be just another puppet of a hidden sock-master). The four were used in a failed attempt to keep an article that was nominated at AfD. In any case, while the four socks have not been used (or washed, probably) in over eight years, they still appear to be usable accounts, in that they were never blocked, nor does it appear they were ever the subject of an investigation. (It appears the master was also used for a bit of creative vandalism, but that was also corrected at the time.) So the questions are: does anybody care about these socks after this much time? Can sock-puppetry be proven after this much time? And, if "yes" (or even "maybe") to both, what is the proper way to report them? Etamni | ✉   07:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

A little question =)[edit]

Hey there Mike, Just a little question You have messaged me that my edits have been "suppressed" and this probably refers to my User page. What was in there that needed suppression? No hate, just need some guidance. Thanks in advance.

Hmeh2k (talk) 15:29, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I've sent you an email. Mike VTalk 18:15, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Mail call[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.

Winner 42 Talk to me! 17:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I'll give that a look as soon as I can. Mike VTalk 17:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

You've got more mail, the plot thickens[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.

Winner 42 Talk to me! 21:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Old Arbcom Election Template at TfD[edit]

Mike, it has been years since I worked on an arbcom election - long before commissioners had to be elected, if that tells you anything. But when I was on the committee in 2008, I helped write a talk page header for candidate talk pages. You can find it at Template:Acecandheader, where edits suggest it was in use through ACE2012. It is currently up for discussion at TFD, and I don't have any data as to whether it's actually a useful (or usable) template in the current election format. The discussion is here. Any insight is welcome. Thanks in advance. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I've left a quick note on the TfD page. Mike VTalk 18:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


Hi Mike, saw your block of Algircal as a sock of Curb Chain. I've been tracking that user for years, they do keep popping up. I am wondering if it's worth doing a long-term abuse page on this user. See [1]. (And, FWIW this) Your thoughts? Montanabw(talk) 23:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

If the individual keeps popping up, I think it would be helpful to have some reference to the type of edits the individual makes. This is especially helpful if the user goes a few months from editing, as it may take some time to refamiliarize one's self with the individual's behavior. Mike VTalk 18:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, if you want to take a peek at my sandbox and comment if we have enough for a LTA, I'd be willing to work on one. Problem is I am not certain that we definitively tied Una Smith to Curb Chain (though I'm pretty sure they were the same user - but RTV seemed to apply, they went a while between the two personas) Thoughts? Montanabw(talk) 04:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Mike, not sure how to handle this: [2] The user was blocked for socking, but then returns to at least one of the same templates (Template talk:Horse breeds of France) and raises the same issues. Also, I noticed here that the user was topic banned by Bishonen from contributing to list discussions and topics, so going after navigation templates on the grounds that they are parallel to lists is, IMHO stepping into a gray area. But, I don't have the time or energy to step into the endless drama this user can generate, so am just wondering if this should just be a situation where we focus on content only and see what happens? Your thoughts? Montanabw(talk) 18:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Note: My topic ban of Curb Chain from lists and related pages has expired; it was placed in June 2013 and was only for six months. Bishonen | talk 18:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC).
For what it's worth, I find it hard to see the actions of either one as anything but intentionally disruptive; but I'm trying. Mike V, is the connection between the two documented anywhere? I saw the block of Algircal as a sock, but wasn't able to see who it was a sock of. Doesn't the sockmaster usually get blocked too? Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Justlettersandnumbers: They originally thought it was OccultZone. Montanabw(talk) 20:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC) :

This is not the first sockpuppet of this user; it really is time for a LTA and an indef block, JMO. Montanabw(talk) 20:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


Mike, how was Malik able to do this while blocked? I know a block doesn't remove administrator privileges, but I still didn't think it was possible. I'm sure how this works is covered somewhere, but I don't know where. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

It appears that the way the blocking feature works is that it only prevents one from editing (save their talk page). It doesn't seem to place any restrictions on other actions an admin may take. Mike VTalk 18:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Malik Shabazz[edit]

A request for arbitration has been filed relating to you. --ceradon (talkedits) 01:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Re: Sock puppet case[edit]

Mike V, feel free to close the sockpuppet case I opened up (the one you already commented on). I'll take your word on it that my case is weak. Thanks for the heads up KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 19:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

No worries, I've closed the case for you. Mike VTalk 22:49, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Is it possible to rev/del this?[edit]

post 1 post 2

This appears to be a new version of the person who made 3 earlier posts to Cassianto's talk page. The name of the game is apparently to get the YouTube link permanently seen; you can see the person posted nothing. I recall seeing one of the earlier rev/del posts where the user admitted this was his intention. I know you blocked the person, but can anything be done to obscure the objectionable user name too? Thanks, We hope (talk) 03:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Someone's taken care of this now-thanks! We hope (talk) 11:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Newman socks[edit]

Hi Mike, for what its worth I do think they are brothers, given the details of the articles they've started which are mainly about themselves, hence the cross-article edits. I've been watching them since the first autobio was created and it looks more like younger (16yo by admission) editors in the same household writing about themselves rather than a malicious sock farm. I don't, of course, have the information you have, and my good-faith has been burned several times in past in areas like this, so I'm not asking for anything here, just giving a side opinion. Thanks, CrowCaw 16:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Lucio Dalla[edit]

Same again; a few months after the "only autoconfirmed" wears out, anon IPs are back removing LGBT categories from the article. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it for now. The level of disruption isn't quite what it was when it was protected. However, if it keeps up I'll reinstate the protection. Mike VTalk 20:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, we're up to 4 so far... no, five, and back to immediate reverts. Same edit summaries as previously, too. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I've semi-protected it for 6 months. Mike VTalk 18:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. See you again in 6 months (I fear). Pinkbeast (talk) 10:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Please undelete the Ohio gov talk pages[edit]

Apparently you deleted a bunch of talk pages for Ohio state government departments under WP:G5 sometime on the 23rd. Could you undelete them, please? I'm not sure what was on them, but I think it was fairly innocuous. I don't do talk pages, so I would really like to just keep what someone else wrote. Thanks! Int21h (talk) 01:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, there wasn't much content on the page. It was solely article assessments. I don't think there's a need to restore the pages. Best, Mike VTalk 16:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case opened[edit]

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 8, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)