User talk:Mike V

Welcome to my Talk Page! 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.

Please explain

Please explain what you mean by the comment you left on my page. Thanks. --Marbe166 (talk) 06:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I was referring to the link you added to the Peter Haber article. Mike V • Talk 14:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

SPI archive link not showing

I'm not sure what happened, but after you archived this SPI [1] the archive link stopped displaying on the SPI page Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Trackteur. Meters (talk) 19:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

See User talk:Salvidrim!#Archive link missing? -- now  fixed. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Lesson learned. Meters (talk) 19:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

ip block exemption Reply

Hi there, I got a notification that I no longer have an IP block exemption. Any special reason why not? I haven't been using those computers lately, but I might conceivably want to at some point. Elinruby (talk) 09:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi there. It's not so much the computers that you are using, but the network that you access. Originally, the IP block exemption was granted to you because you were affected by a hard block a range that you use. I've looked at the block and it is no longer in place. You should be able to edit just fine without IPBE. If you encounter any difficulties, please let me know and I'd be glad to take a look. Mike V • Talk 16:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Mike V: ok, network. Be technical. Let's try this again. The IP block in question was the library system for San Mateo County, California. Big place, downtown Bay Area, tho sure, apparently there were persistent vandals, I get it, the admin I talked to about this explained it to me at the time..

My point is, though, that although I have been able to edit from home recently, I might need to go to the library fairly soon, actually, since I have been working on an article about a big news story (Panama Papers) and am increasingly hampered by paywalls, ie "we're glad you like the Financial Times so much -- please subscribe." I can't do that for ALL the publications, so I need a different internet gateway.If you are saying that I don't need it anymore because I haven't needed it, you may be wrong, is all I am saying.

Or Or has Wikipedia lifted the IP block on San Mateo County, and that's why you are saying I don't need it? In that case, I might agree with you, actually. Are you able to easily determine whether Santa Clara County has the same restrictions? I don't live *that* far from there any more. If I can be autoconfirmed on wikipedia on their network, no, guess I can do without it if you want to keep user permissions at lowest needed level. I would. Can you ping me please? This may affect my plans for the next few days. And if I can avoid a journey just to discover that WP thinks I am a newbie, that would be great :) Thanks Elinruby (talk) 15:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

@Elinruby: The blocks that were previously affecting you are no longer in place. You should be able to edit just fine while logged into your account. Mike V • Talk 16:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

great, thanks for the clarification.Elinruby (talk) 20:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Both are the same person. QuackGuru (talk) 18:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Davidbuddy9 and User:QuentinQuade

I was a bit confused as to what happened here. Of course I don't have the tools you do, but did an IP or MACD check confirm this is a sockpuppet? I assume you have completely ruled out the possibility that these are two editors who are friends and canvassed each other. I only bring this up because it seemed there was a 180 between your evaluation and Vanjagenije. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 22:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Yep, I ran a check to compare the accounts. I decided to dig deeper when I saw the AfD votes. The interaction tool showed more overlapping discussions, with some votes only minutes apart. I ran a check and found technical evidence that connected the accounts, including apparent attempts to hide his efforts of sockpuppetry. Mike V • Talk 22:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

In case there was any doubt, Davidbuddy9 confirmed he used the account. Mike V • Talk 22:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good thanks for getting back to me. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 21:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

For your consideration, in case you want to give a warning, take action, or merely weigh this in case future problems arise. He just posted a deceptive search link in an RFC, which I consider disruptive. Quick background, and for brevity I assume you don't care what ESI is. He had been creating lists based on ESI, rebuilding existing lists to be based ESI, and sock-voting to keep them. There is currently an RFC open to decide whether ESI is an unencyclopedic value that shouldn't be used at all in our general articles. It's currently going against him. He just made this edit. The search result returns 46 science papers, which he claims backs up common scientific use of ESI. Except 43 of the 46 search results are bogus, false hits. (I checked each and every one.) He also presented 3 specific valid links from that list as "just three random papers I clicked on", as examples of science papers using ESI. Normally we would AGF a flawed search link. However if he had clicked three links at random, as he claims, there's only a 1 in 15180 chance that he could have clicked the exact three valid search results. I think he's burned his AGF, there's no way this was an innocent mistake. It's another effort to deceptively subvert voting in his favor, for his ESI fetish. Alsee (talk) 12:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Whew

Thank goodness for this. Nsmutte is easy to type that long string of letters wouldn't have been :-) Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 22:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi..

Your presence is requested in ACC:168699, please (fairly urgent). Thank you —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC) Edited --18:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

No problem, everything is all set now. Mike V • Talk 19:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shamit Khemka

Hello, Mike V. You have new messages at Yamamoto Ichiro's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 09:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Mike V. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 18:44, 16 April 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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

GAB^Hello! 18:44, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

CosmicEmperor

Hello, sorry to bother you, but have got a suspicion that CosmicEmperor is using a new sockpuppet called ThePlatypusofDoom. He's similar to GreekLegend in being heavily involved with AFD, issuing prods, interfering with new page patrols to issue csds,(he's been warned on his talkpage for interfering with npp actions) and also interfering at the ANI board. Thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:30, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but the account is not related to CosmicEmperor. Mike V • Talk 20:53, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

ACC

Have I told you how amazing you are? ;).. On a totally unrelated note.. *looks back and forth* ACC has a CU backlog of 15+ requests and 4 days. :) -- Cheers, Riley 20:09, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Trying to butter me up, eh? I'll hop on and take a look shortly. Mike V • Talk 20:41, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

It worked, didn't it? Heh. CU backlog now 14+. -- Cheers, Riley 19:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Mike V. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

. -- Cheers, Riley 03:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Socks within socks?

Thanks for checking and closing the nominations at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Henry Mazzer. Since our edits sort of overlapped, I don't know if you saw my suggestion there that all these might be related to David Beals. Any thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 20:22, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

From what I gathered, it doesn't seem to be likely. Mike V • Talk 20:24, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I see socks are appearing out of the woodwork at a great rate, almost faster than you can keep up. Wish there was some way to block the parent IP (or range?). I know you can't talk about that. --MelanieN (talk) 20:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

• Could you please comment on Biscuittin, in relation to this crop of socks.

Do you think Biscuittin was the sockmaster behind this group? There's no obvious evidence given on the SPI page and there are a number of master pages open with overlapping puppets claimed.

So far I have seen no evidence to connect this to Biscuittin. I'd worked around Biscuittin for some years, rarely happily, but he had never struck me as the type to start socking or pull this level of disruption. Jytdog though is now throwing his name around whenever some new random troll pops up. This is right against a bunch of our basic principles: we should AGF Biscuittin unless there is evidence to really suggest otherwise, unfounded SPIs are harassment, and it's also basically unfair to be throwing so many allegations around after blocking their access to reply.

Is there anything sticking to Biscuittin, because I'm not seeing it. In its absence, we should back off blackening him. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

While I appreciate your efforts in assuming good faith, the technical evidence does show a credible connection between the socks and the account. The behavioral evidence of the socks targeting Jytdog lends support to this conclusion as well. Mike V • Talk 15:05, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Being pissed off at Jytdog isn't restricted to Biscuittin though! I saw Biscuittin's initial trouble, and their thoroughly unproductive indef, as being targetted at JzG, not Jytdog. The "WP needs reform" essay is the sort of thing that has many hands over it already and is no more than a shared grievance. Even QuackGuru has as much involvement with that as anyone else, yet Jytdog is never going to accuse him of being a sock. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

To be clear, it's only supporting evidence. The technical evidence carries a lot of the weight in establishing the connection. Mike V • Talk

As usual, that's all behind the impenetrable veil of CU but "Possilikely" is hardly damning! How many sockmasters has Milligansuncle now been accused of being a puppet for? Four? If we can't be clearer than that, it's no grounds for declaring Biscuittin as the next Trotsky/Snowball/Josef K unperson. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I understand that "because of checkuser evidence" isn't the best thing to hear. It's inherently opaque, as the privacy policy limits when and to whom I can release this information. With that said, I believe it's done that way for the best. The possilikely result was the outcome of only one of the checks that I performed. However, upon looking at the new accounts that have arisen, the technical data has become more clear and it was easier to reach my conclusion. Mike V • Talk 19:31, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the rapid

…reversion of vandalism at the Prince article. One can only be appreciative of the diligence it takes to prevent such offenses, here.

Indulge my technical and procedural curiosity, if you will—how is it that the Revision history's time and date stamp link points to a non-vandaised version of the article in place of the vandalised? This must be a capability limited to Administrators I am guessing? Regarding the need, despite this, for an historical record, please see below.

I note also that the Edit summaries for both the vandalism and reversion are "edit summary removed" with a strike-through. Is this the prescribed way of dealing with offensive vandalism? I can understand the need to limit circulation of an offensive edit, but should there not be a clear record, in the Edit summary or Talk (somewhere), for the historical record, as to what occurred? ("Offensive edit of the type… removed and replaced with…", or some such.)

Also, am I wrong on perceiving that your edit, being made within a minute of the vandalism, despite which, The Wrap ended up with a "screen shot" of the offensive vandalism, would suggest that the editor Heidi Wyss that is now blocked, did their edit with the specific intent of creating content to provide to a publication such as The Wrap? (Had the edit stayed in place for any length of time, there would be other explanations. But given the one minute turn-around, it seems to me that the record of the vandalism could only have been made during the edit, by the vandals themselves.) Are there technical points I am missing that would suggest otherwise? (For instance, was exchange of the link to the offending page edit at the Revision history's time and date stamp immediate, as the edit summary suggests, or was that unique aspect of the reversion and record generation perhaps done later, leaving time for someone to make a copy, via an authentic link to the past page, for transmission to The Wrap?)

My interest in this, is (eventually) to shed light on the way that the story made its way outside of Wikipedia. Per your diligence, it does not seem that is should have. Cheers, and again, thanks for the attention and effort. Leprof 7272 (talk) 23:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

The article was moved to an offensive name and I had moved it back to the original title. Another administrator used the revision deletion tool to redact the log entry. The editor, Heidi Wyss, was then blocked for this vandalism. As for whether The Wrap was responsible for it, I can't say for sure. Yesterday there were 5.8 million page views, so a number of individuals could have seen the concerning revision(s) in that short period of time. Mike V • Talk 13:52, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Recent block

You recently blocked Purple Showers, an editor I had suggested as a possible sock I had named in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Whiskeymouth (already CU'd by another CU). Just wanted to make you aware in case I was only half-right. NE Ent 10:25, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be related to Whiskeymouth, but the account is confirmed to BettyDavis1989, StudentAssignment1, Justaprilfols, Dishwater Red, and Ensign Hapuna of the Royal Hawaiian Navy. Mike V • Talk 13:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Help Me Rhonda, help, help me Rhonda!!!

Could you help me figure out the problem with the cite error for the first reference on the David Saunders (American football) article? I don't quite no what's going on. I read it twice and the words just aren't making sense in my brain at the moment. CrashUnderride 23:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

@Crash Underride: All set. Mike V • Talk 23:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank ya. CrashUnderride 23:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Henry Mazzer socks

Hello, Mike V,
I was looking at Mazzer's socks and User:TrackerMartin and User:Hatchmight were previously identified as socks of User:Evlekis. Could Mazzer and all of his socks belong to Evlekis then? If so, I guess Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Henry Mazzer/Archive might have to be moved or renamed. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:45, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. I reviewed the technical evidence and it seems you are right. I've gone ahead and merged the cases. Mike V • Talk 15:05, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Hapuna

I am posting only to contact you because I don't know how to contact you otherwise. I have no intention of editing.

I request that you exempt me (Hapuna) from your recent action. This is a computer in a lounge. I have acted responsibly. You may, of course, act with insults, denial, or other authoritative means but I simply ask you to be fair and compassionate with me. Thank you. Ensign H (talk) 19:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I won't be able to grant your request. Technical evidence shows that multiple accounts were created, which is against our sockpuppetry policy. Best, Mike V • Talk 19:22, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Biscuittin

Sorry to bug you but what did you mean by "RBI-ing" here? thx. Jytdog (talk) 09:52, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

No worries. It means to revert, block, and ignore. Mike V • Talk 12:52, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Gotcha. thx Jytdog (talk) 14:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Regarding my account

Hey, thanks for intervening but checked again today, my block status says unblocked, but when i try to edit a page i created, it says you are blocked. Please counter-check again. Thanks

 ------------------------------------------------------

Checked again, just now. It worked. Thanks Samar khurshid (talk) 13:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC) Samar khurshid (talk) 13:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Darreg

I'm not sure if pings work properly within unblock templates, so I thought I'd best let you know directly too - I've put an unblock request on hold at User talk:Darreg pending your input. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for posting, as I did not get the ping. I've gone ahead and unblocked the account. Mike V • Talk 14:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Great, thanks! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much sirs'. You don't know how happy I am for the privilege to be legally back to Wikipedia. You made my day, this is not something I will take for granted at all. Yesterday, I actually thanked God for the favour. I promise to stick to the guidelines of Wikipedia completely irrespective of anything that comes my way in the future. Darreg (talk) 11:59, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for standing up for a little civility here. Legacypac (talk) 13:39, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi

I've just been blocked [wrongly!] and I am deeply affronted. I am very inexperienced and it has taken me twenty minutes to find this way to contact you, but I am furious.

Kindly explain why my IP 79.64.58.17 was blocked along with whatever it was.(New Tricks TV episodes)

You ought to take better care of decent people trying to improve Wiki; this is Draconian and either the structure is all wrong, or you have made an error or you are just plain a nasty person. What?

I reckon I shall simply leave.

Thank you in advance for your reply

Regards

Paul — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjh009 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

If you look at the block notice, it will show that the IP was blocked, not your account directly. I designed the block so that users who were logged in could edit without restriction. Because the block is a checkuser block, I can't elaborate on it due to our privacy policy. Please note that such blocks are not made unless they are necessary to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia. While we hope that you won't leave, if you choose to do so we respect that decision and wish you the best in your future endeavors. Best regards, Mike V • Talk 20:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Winterysteppe

This has a similar name as KgosarMyth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), another confirmed sock. It was created just after the last couple of socks were blocked. Just checking on this... Thanks! GAB^Hello! 23:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

 Confirmed. Thanks for passing that on. Mike V • Talk 00:12, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

No, thank you. This whole thing is just sad, like the Taokaka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) debacle. GAB^Hello! 00:13, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Soft skin

Could you please try to block their IP address? CLCStudent (talk) 18:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

That is not possible here. Mike V • Talk 18:55, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Appreciate the second chance.

Sorry for the bad behavior yesterday. Thanks for removing the block. You won't have any more problems from me - that is a promise. The comment to NBSB was inappropriate and I sincerely apologize for causing you and the other admins any problems. It was an off-the-cuff remark made in jest. Looking back I can see how it could construed as an insult/harassment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:8B40:CC20:4944:6CBD:BE69:44BE (talk) 23:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

As promised - account created!

Mike, as promised, I created an account and have now logged in. I very much want to edit constructively and help wikipedia. I am also curious as to what my next steps should be? Are there any articles that need fixing/editing? I am happy to assist with grammar/punctuation cleanup if need be, or adding/creating content in whatever area most needs it. As I said, I am here to help and appreciate the second chance. Msjjkim (talk) 01:15, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

On ACC: blocks affecting schools and simple vandalism

The criteria for ignoring is 'Rangeblocks or single IP blocks affecting schools can be ignored only if both are found to be true[...]' I'm a relatively new ACC user, so I'm wondering whether the fact it's schools is relevant in dealing with this guideline. Take request (Redacted) - was there evidence that the IP was a school that I missed? Thanks NottNott|talk 21:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

First, welcome to to ACC team! Looking at that request, the IP was blocked using the {{anonblock}} and the block was over a week ago. Thus you can ignore the block and handle it normally, as per this part of the guide. (The same applies for schools blocks over a week old.) Of course, if something seems off and you suspect something, leave a note in the comments and the CUs will take a further look. Hope that helps. Let me know if you have any other questions. Mike V • Talk 22:14, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

ACC user rights

Hello! Can you please reinstate my Account creator right? I have been readded to the tool. TheMesquito^buzz 17:38, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Mike V • Talk 20:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Hypixel (Minecraft Server)

Just thought you may be interested in the small army of SPAs at that page who are working in tandem, removing CSD tags ([2][3]), trying to strip out advertisements in an effort to keep the article, participating in the talk-page discussion (and agreeing with one another) and at AFD, etc. It gives me a headache just looking at it all, and I was wondering if you thought it was worth pursuing further. Thanks for your help! GAB^Hello! 21:56, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Those accounts are  Unrelated. Hope that helps. Mike V • Talk 00:59, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the help with my Userpage it is much appreciated. --Cameron11598 (Converse) 03:09, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Mishandled ACC request

Hello! Can you have a look at 171259 and confirm if it was okay to create or block the account if not? Thanks—UY Scuti ^Talk 15:03, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Everything seems to be OK. Mike V • Talk 15:46, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Inappropriate, inappropriate and premature closure of ANI discussion

I strongly object to your closure of the ANI discussion involving me, which was open for little more than than 48 hours, and after an initial burst of activity showed substqntial, well-reasoned objections from highly experienced users. Many of the comments were informed by malice rather than policy or guideline, and reflected an underlying dispute over the mistreatment of new users by aggressive speedy deletion taggers. It went undenied in the discussion that far, far more uncivil comments directed at me, even in the instant discussion. As administrator, you are required to weigh guideline and policy, not merely count !votes. I also note that your abrupt action prevented me from posting a response I was in the process of preparing, documenting that point more extensively, since several posgters simply denied the significance of it. It should be absurd to note that one of the administrators who criticized my alleged incivilities had only a few weeks ago declared that comments directed at me like "bigoted, puritanical, and culturally myopic" were "not offensive". The double standard here is pretty rank, and responsible, honest people should not lend their name or support to it. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:54, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I think you should be happy with how that turned out. Did you notice that many users were calling for a block for the behaviour you have already engaged in? A lot of people are telling you that your behaviour is problematic, I think you should start recognizing that instead of constantly denying it. HighInBC 15:08, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I think that there is a great deal of hypocrisy going on here, and that your comments reflect it. No one has denied that my comments do not come close to rising to the level of incivility that has regularly been tolerated in other discussions, directed at me and at others. It's also a conspicuous example of that hypocrisy that users simultaneously argued that SiTrew's allegedly valuable contributions should be balanced against his own civilities and deliberately false accusations, but that my more extensive history of valuable contributions should not be. Apparently there may be a segment of the community which is willing to excuse unabashed and malicious lying, but punish a level of brusqueness which is easily tolerated in the real world. That is an opinion I would be ashamed to hold. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:19, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to be traveling for a few hours in a few minutes. I will draft up a more thorough response and post it when I have connection to the internet. For now, I stand by the close and believe another administrator who closed it would come to a similar conclusion. Mike V • Talk 15:34, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

OK. I hope you're prepared to explain why an action like that could possibly be appropriate in light of the long and virtually unbroken chain of community discussions like this [4] and this [5], part of a campaign of attacks that continue to the present day, go without significant sanction, for example. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:59, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

In regards to the closing time, I believe it was appropriate. Sanction discussions should be open for at least 24 hours. This discussion was open for approximately 63 hours and the most recent comment was nearly a full day ago. It was also open long enough for you to respond to the interaction ban and so a clear consensus could be determined. I’m not convinced that the time of my closing prevented you from posting a response, nor that it would have been significant enough to change the consensus of the discussion. Looking at your contributions today and yesterday, you evaluated articles for speedy deletion, participated in article for deletion discussions, and engaged in discussion with other users. I believe that if you wanted to respond to additional comments, you could have done so during this time period.

As the closing administrator for this thread, I was only evaluating the arguments, evidence, and policy presented in this instance for this issue. If you feel that there are other users who are acting inappropriately towards you, you will need to initiate your own dispute resolution. This may include opening a separate AN/I thread, undergoing mediation, or simply informing the users that you do not appreciate their rude comments and ask that they refrain from making them.

I read through the comments a couple of times before I closed the discussion and felt that the discussion established a consensus to enact an interaction ban. A number of editors felt that the comments made were insults, that the insults were unwarranted, and that they violated our civility policy and our no personal attack policy. I considered the opposing comments as well and only a couple of individuals felt that an interaction ban was excessive. There were a number of users who explicitly stated that the conduct was inappropriate and warranted a warning. A few even suggested a block for the present behavior. After considering all sides, I felt a warning to cease that behavior was appropriate.

In addition, I evaluated the quality of the comments that were made and factored that into my decision. I disregarded Bosley John Bosley’s comment because it did not contribute constructively to the discussion and did not present a valid argument. DuncanHill’s comment was given little weight because it was not a very good stance. Whether or not there was merit to his claims, another user’s inexperience or behavior would not warrant inappropriate comments and/or actions from another user. Clubjustin should have provided evidence of the personal attacks he claimed to have received. This would have helped the community determine if he was correct or not and if they did occur, gauge the severity of the comments.

As for your oppose, I was not swayed very much by your rationale. It did not address much of the comments and evidence that was presented. You side-stepped the discussion by talking about previous comments targeted towards you and (erroneously) claimed that these comments are permitted. (As noted above, you should engage in dispute resolution or seek remedies against users who engage in such behavior.) The discussion about notifications and replying to discussion threads was not taken into consideration in any fashion because it was irrelevant to the issue that was raised.

In regards to the links of ANI discussions you’ve posted from 2010 and 2011, first and foremost if you felt they were mishandled, that should have been brought up years ago, not today. (e.g. Making a post to AN along the lines of “I have raised some concerns about a particular editor. However, I don’t believe that my post is receiving the attention that I believe it requires. Could any available administrator take a look and assist me in resolving my concerns?”) Second, I must note that how previous threads are handled do not have any bearing on how sanctions are handled today. We don’t use old ANI threads as precedent.

I feel that I’ve adequately addressed all the comments and concerns that you have raised. If you are still not satisfied with my rationale, you are welcome to ask for a review of my closure at AN. If other administrators feel my close was inappropriate and view the consensus differently, I would be open to letting someone else make the final call. Mike V • Talk 19:12, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I think not. You have fundamentally misinterpreted one of my central points. I have argued that, for several years, and rather consistently, as recently as a few weeks ago, comments and invective hurled in my direction, far more uncivil in nature, have been treated as within the bounds of allowable discussion. Your conclusion that this amounts to "sidestepping" anything is simply wrong. It defies logic for you to deny that "these comments are permitted" is incorrect: they were permitted; users who made them were not sanctioned, and rarely if ever even warned. The statement that old discussions are not "precedents" may be valid but that is not important: they demonstrate consensus, unhappy as that consensus may be in your eyes, and disregarding established consensus to facilitate adverse action against an individual user simply demonstrates willingness to support wikilynch mobs. It reflects poorly on your suitability to resolve such matters. Again, I urge you to reopen the discussion and allow me to me to make a more detailed response, since you plainly did not properly understand my brief statement. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 20:19, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Hullabaloo, I think Mike V was generous in his closing. What you're arguing here is, still, a variation on WP:OTHERSTUFF. Even if we are incomplete or inconsistent in our enforcement of incivility, that is not a license to go ahead and unleash like you did on Simon Trew. As I said in the thread, I understand frustration, but there are proper and improper ways to respond. The diffs given were examples of improper ways, and rather than apologize for them or try to make up one way or another, you argue that it's OK to insult people because you've been insulted as well. Drmies (talk) 00:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/DarknessShines2

82.21.35.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sir, I guess he's at it again. Thanks—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 11:29, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

You've beaten me to it. Definitely him. Clearly matches the POV / disruption continued plus the current IP [6] is from the same region, Swindon, as the one I reported at SPI [7]. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for 1 week. Mike V • Talk 17:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• You missed to block this IP which i mentioned in the SPI. He's back to socking with it [8]. Same geolocation as above. Thanks in advance. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:17, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
• Altaf Raza samandar‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Jumps right back to the same page DS was editing last. A check is requested, please. Thankyou.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 08:45, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the technical data, it's a sock of Kichappan (as well as our recent reverter). Mike V • Talk 18:23, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Either way, he was a sock. One less sock at WP. Thankyou for that sir!—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 18:37, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Hey, I saw that you blocked User:Stefanomione for sockpuppetry. After I saw this I've become a bit suspicious about this discussion on my talk page where the author seems to act as a sort of a spokesman of Stefanomione. Could you perhaps check if it is another case of sockpuppetry? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:05, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I checked the IPs in use by Stefanomione and only saw the one other account in use. Mike V • Talk 17:17, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok thanks for checking. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:15, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Mum Bot

Mike its been suggested that this user might have been a sock for User:Some1asks, who was blocked for having a compromised account; his edit included this this edit, followed by Mum Bot reposting exactly the same thing today. Cheers, _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

 Done It had not passed by others, either  ;) cheers, _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:57, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I've "upgraded" the block to a hard one. It's  Confirmed. Mike V • Talk 16:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Nice one, thanks for info _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:38, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Blocked User

Hello,

There's recently a huge edit warring on the Vietnamese Community of Wikipedia. User:MiG29VN have engaged on a lot of topics and seem to use the same Accounts on the English Wiki. I recommend to update the current on going Investigations.

Confirmed Socks on the Vietnamese Wiki:

• https://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Th%E1%BB%83_lo%E1%BA%A1i:T%C3%A0i_kho%E1%BA%A3n_con_r%E1%BB%91i_c%E1%BB%A7a_MiG29VN

Current listed Socks on the English Wiki:

• https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MiG29VN/Archive

Confirmed Socks, but not blocked on the English Wiki:

• https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/Vuquangtu
• https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/Minhthai1
• https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/Phucngo1963
• https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/Rongdo007
• https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/Giodongnoi

- Probably many more!

Suspected Socks which are under Investigation (Vietnamese Wiki) :

• https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/Thaiduong123
• https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/Binhtransaigon
• https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/Banzaku
• https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/Xuantoc

Regards Udintsev (talk) 17:52, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Thefuckerofwikipedia

Mike, can you get rid of this character? Not only his username, but this is his contribution to the project. Cheers, _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 19:15, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

S'OKay, Nakon got their first! Cheers, _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 19:22, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Precedence.

Out of nowhere something is just so real to be exactly that to go with it how so. Vvvpalacios83 (talk) 03:50, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Sock

fyi, https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SheriffIsInTown&diff=721677385&oldid=721668025 The Masked Man of Mega Might (talk) 11:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. It looks like everything was checked by Bbb23. Mike V • Talk 15:39, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

ThePlatypusofDoom

Mike V- Perhaps you could take a look here? Bizarre coincincidence, but just noticed that R. hasn't edited since that morning! Guess it will all make sense to you though. Cheers, _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:07, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Admin barnstar

		The Admin's Barnstar
		You have certainly gone beyond the call of duty on the edit warring and oversighting. Thanks for helping out with the cleanup. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 18:38, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:IBE RfC on proof of work

Per your comment on Wikipedia_talk:IP_block_exemption#RfC:_Grant_exemptions_to_users_in_good_standing_on_request, I believe you may also be interested in Wikipedia_talk:IP_block_exemption#RfC:_Automatically_grant_IPBE_to_users_by_proof_of_work_alone and posting it wherever you posted the former. Sai ¿?✍ 19:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

The messages that I placed here and here direct the users to the IPBE talk page. I think the link is sufficient for both proposals, but you're welcome to add a message below my original notice here. Best, Mike V • Talk 22:07, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Which Hazel? and That man from Nantucket

You recently gave the That man from Nantucket an indefinite block, when it was determined it was a sockpuppet account. But you only gave the master a one week block.

I have spent hours, in the last couple of days, trying to AGF, and not let my interaction with TmfN escalate into edit warring. After learning he or she was a sockpuppet I am very resentful of the hours of wasted time I spent responding as if he or she was a clueless newbie, who deserved AGF. It now seems as if all their accusations, threats and IDHT were pure bad faith.

Under what conditions does the sockpuppet-master also earn themselves an indefinite block? Geo Swan (talk) 20:41, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Mike, I see you just adjusted the block on That man from Nantucket. However, unless there is something beyond what's appearing on-wiki, it appears that the last use of the original account was two months ago, and as explained on User talk:That man from Nantucket, that may have been inadvertent.

I understand that Geo Swan is frustrated, but I'd appreciate your taking a look at the unblock request. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

And I see your comment there. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:56, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, NYB. I left my comment there before I saw the message here. Feel free to post here (or there) if you wish to discuss it further.

Hi Geo Swan, I understand your frustration. Usually an indefinite block is granted when there is significant sockpuppetry (multiple accounts) or if the user is very new and shows no signs of positive contributions. (e.g. vandalism, BLP issues, and/or highly disruptive editing) If a user continues to engage in sockpuppetry, the blocks will escalate in duration, eventually leading to an indefinite block. I hope the issues don't resume, but I'll keep an eye out and do my best to take of it if it does. Best, Mike V • Talk 01:02, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

… for this, which got the job done. However, just my 2p, I don't think the behaviour of Music10-user is remotely similar, so that could perhaps have been a false positive? I'd stupidly forgotten that there was already Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alec Smithson, but I've now filed there for the record. Is there any mechanism for dealing with global socking? Thanks, regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:46, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the technical data, the accounts shared a couple /16 ranges and had a similar user agent. The previous Alec Smithson accounts are stale, so I can't make a technical connection. (Which is why I haven't tagged the account.) Requests to globally lock the account across the whole project can be made to a steward here. Mike V • Talk 14:51, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Your block of EEng

After your warning ("conduct concerns") on User talk:EEng, EEng posted this response. He also made a few innocuous edits on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images, but I'm sure your block had nothing to do with those. You blocked for his response to your warning, and I don't think that was reasonable. The response wasn't very polite, indeed. It didn't defer to you as admin. The worst of it was that he changed your header, which is certainly inappropriate. But was it a disruptive edit, enough reason to block? No. Mainly it was an explanation of his criticisms of Bbb23. It didn't contain any personal attacks against Bbb23 or anybody else AFAICS. I intend to unblock. Bishonen | talk 21:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC).

Question?

Hi Mike V,

I’m writing to you regarding the WP:SOCK investigation against Tiroth. Once a decision was finalized by Vanjagenije on the investigation[[9]] and a ban[[10]] was issued, I posted a note the next day on the B5 CCG’s talk page[[11]] regarding any future disruptive edits on the aforementioned subject matter and that they would be either removed or deleted. The following day you moved the investigation[[12]] to archive[[13]] and this was immediately followed by a new IP[[14]] reverting the edits on the subject matter and furthermore an edit I made on a different page[[15]] where citations were needed. My main question is where do I add the disruption by the new IP[[16]], at the investigation[[17]] page or the archive[[18]]? Thank you for any assistance. --[[User talk: Slave28|♪ℓ☮⚔☭ⅩⅩⅧ]] (talk) 00:34, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

@Slave28: You should not edit archives (logically). Go to WP:SPI and follow steps explained in a box titled "How to open an investigation". Vanjagenije (talk) 08:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks Vanjagenije, I will go look that up now.

Look again?

I don't think this was a proper rede of the situation [19]. If you actually look at WT:Stub, you'll see it's clearly a WP:1AM situation, with Lugnuts, confused and unable to clearly articulate what he's on about, against everyone else, and revertwarring with no rationale after multiple editors have said he has no rationale and needs to give it a rest. His noise about the matter was completely derailing productive discussion which was actually on-topic (what to do with CSS, etc., to potentially improve the layout). If you're going to be an RFPP admin, please (especially before templating people and threatening them with blocks) take stock of the ground truth of a situation, don't just look to see if two people have reverted more than once and hit them with the same hammer. Not everyone is a nail. There's a difference between a revert with a rationale, backed up by other editors, and a revert on a "WP:IDONTLIKEIT and you didn't get my permission" pseudo-basis. Especially when an entire month of discussion has produced nothing whatsoever supporting the latter's position.

Plain WP:COMMONSENSE applies here, too: When the discussion was intended to focus on technical improvements, but the troublemaker is attempting, in a WP:FILIBUSTER and WP:WINNING style, to use that discussion as a smokescreen to keep re-adding pointlessly vague and confusing wording that others object to for multiple reasons, there is only one editor causing an actionable problem. I mean, seriously. Just skim the discussion. Lugnuts is (very literally, unmistakably, and pointedly) accusing everyone who doesn't agree with him of being in a WP:TAGTEAM and a WP:CABAL, which is clearly a WP:AGF/WP:CIVIL problem, and evidence of a WP:COMPETENCE issue. People are not productive collaborators here if any time they don't get the inexplicable thing they want, they start screaming "conspiracy" and pointing fingers at people. Editors working to keep a guideline usable and stable should not fear to approach a noticeboard when one seems called for.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:15, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:3RR applies to almost all situations, regardless if the reverts for the "right reasons" or not. There is no difference between a revert and a revert with a rationale. If there is a broader issue between you and Lugnuts, perhaps you should seek dispute resolution or additional input from a request for comment. Reverting the edits over and over will not solve the issue. Mike V • Talk 14:05, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I didn't transgress 3RR, so you're not responding to anything I've raised here; this is known has handwaving. There is no issue between Lugnuts and me at all; I've never encountered the editor before as far as I can recall, and we have had no interpersonal exchanges. Two people disagreeing about something on one page does not mean there's an interpersonal problem for which WP:DR processes needs to be set in motion. Instead of looking for excuses to duck questions or criticism and try to deflect it back onto the person raising concerns, please start taking it at face value and do a bit of self-analysis about your admin approach. I note above that even other admins are coming here with concerns, and undoing your heavy handed "hammer" tactics elsewhere (which similarly appear to be predicated on reactiveness without introspection). It's time for you to take a step back and re-evaluate.

PS: multiple editors reverting the same 1AM behavior from a single party is quite effective and a normal part of WP editing process, and it has in fact worked just fine in the case at hand. The vast majority of boneheaded edits to guideline pages are dealt with this way. Someone insists they are right and tries to force their view, without consensus for it and in the face of objections, on a page that has serious site-wide consequences, and the headcount of objectors to what they're trying to do goes up the more insistent and combative they get about it, until they get the point and stop. Business as usual, standard operating procedure. You can't change how WP works by going around threatening everyone with blocks because they reverted something twice, more than a day apart, based on actual discussion on the talk page. Your understanding of WP:EDITWAR is faulty and needs revision.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:02, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

PS: Attempting to filibuster me at Requests for permissions in retaliation for having the stones to disagree with you in ways you can't rebut is simply proving the point that I, Bishonen, Izkala, and others have been raising about your administrative judgment. Having the mop is not license to throw your weight around and take a "Brotherhood", bad-cop approach. Admins are not granted immunity from criticism or scrutiny. The tools are something you're entrusted with, so it isn't going to serve you in the long run to erode that trust more and more at each opportunity point.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:14, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

• (talk page watcher) Wow... "WP:3RR applies to almost all situations, regardless if the reverts for the "right reasons" or not. There is no difference between a revert and a revert with a rationale." Sorry Mike, but no. Although I understand they probably don't apply to the situation at hand, there's actually a significant list of "right reasons" to go beyond 3RR (WP:3RRNO). In addition, when claiming such an exemption, it must be said explicitly in the edit summary. Thus, 5RR without a rationale is never acceptable, while 5RR with a clearly-explained valid exemption is appropriate (and encouraged). While, as I said, these nuances might not be particularly relevant to this specific situation, that's not an excuse to misrepresent policy. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:05, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

That's why I qualified the statement with almost. I'm aware of the exemptions, but the number of situations where they are invoked are quite few. The vast majority of edit wars occur over non-BLP exempt content issues. Mike V • Talk 16:47, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Deleted article

Hi there I recently started a article or whatever you might call it when I tried to access it, it said you had deleted it. I realize that there were some links that might have been offensive but the article was satire and we'll I was hoping you might undelete the article.I don't know if you can do that but I'm really hoping that you can and I would really appreciate it. Keklord911 (talk) 04:38, 30 May 2016 (UTC)Andrew Farman(aka Keklord911)

Since the page was an attack toward someone else, I'm not be willing to provide you with a copy or undelete it. Please note that such pages are not permitted on Wikipedia and creating similar pages will likely result in a block of your account. Mike V • Talk 14:07, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

(none)

The user is putting it as a "mixtape" & it is confirmed in multiples references that it is a studio album. Thank you. Pizzaandchips11 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

@Pizzaandchips11: Thanks for starting a discussion. I think the best course of action for you is to find those sources and present them on the article talk page to the other users. That way, everyone can review them and make sure the sources verify what is claimed and that they are reliable enough to be included. If that's the case, you can gain consensus on the talk page to include the material and after doing so, the changes can be made. Mike V • Talk 21:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

The page i was making was not an attack on someone.

Hi there again. The page I was making was not an attack on a person.The person I was making the page about,Ethan Dean, asked me to make him a wiki and he told me to be ridiculous as possible. Now I don't expect you to believe about what I'm saying but you can even ask him yourself. His snapchat is thgtrolleater.

             Keklord911 (talk) 06:33, 31 May 2016 (UTC)sincerely Keklord911

You Got Mail Again

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

EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:54, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

All set, thanks! Mike V • Talk 23:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:03, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

You've Got Even More Mail!

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

Funcrunch (talk) 23:17, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Replied. Mike V • Talk 00:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Revert User talk:TranslucentCloud blanking at Surface Pro 4

Please, revert User talk:TranslucentCloud blanking at Surface Pro 4. The dispute has been resolved. See Talk:Surface Book#Known Issues. Tandrewmark (talk) 16:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Mail

Ticket#2016060510006855 replied to _Muffled ^Pocketed 17:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Surface Pro 4

Thanks for protecting Surface Pro 4 per these requests. A consensus has been reached concerning the issue at Talk:Surface Book#Known Issues and I have already made an edit at Surface Book per that discussion and would like to do likewise at Surface Pro 4. PaleAqua (talk) 23:55, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to unprotect the page right now, as there still seems to be active discussion elsewhere. Unless there's a policy discussion, I'd prefer if the article discussion remains on the article talk page. Mike V • Talk 23:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

That discussion has stalled and there is consensus to revert the blanking. Will you unprotect the page or revert the blanking? Tandrewmark (talk) 17:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, User talk:107.77.214.170 was not just merely disruptive, he also threatened to out Doug Weller in User talk:Doug Weller. OldTraffordLover (talk) 23:37, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I saw that. The duration of the block is simply because it's likely a dynamic IP. If the user continues with additional threats, we can revoke talk page access. Mike V • Talk 23:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

To share for. Scotsman18 (talk) 04:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Other accounts

Wondering if when you do a check of these two accounts you look for other associated accounts aswell coming from the same IP?[20]

I have a feeling this whole office is full of paid editors. Can send you details by email if you are interested. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Yep. Sorry, I only found those two accounts at this time. Mike V • Talk 12:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay thanks. This IP from an open proxy just began editing.[21] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:36, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I've blocked the web host range. Mike V • Talk 16:48, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Mike V. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Starship9000/Archive.
Message added 14:50, 9 June 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Passengerpigeon (talk) 14:50, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@Passengerpigeon: Yep, they definitely were socks of Starship9000. Recently, the user has been trying to "claim" that the socks belong to other users, as I'm sure you saw here. (1, 2) The user has even gone on to tag their socks with other socks. (3) Best, Mike V • Talk 16:46, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Fountainball Page

I am attempting to make changes to a page I originally created that was removed. The page was removed for not having a credible claim of significance which I believe we can now meet.

Please let me know if there are other changes I would need to make or if you have any questions regarding the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by MattyFredrick (talk • contribs) 14:54, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I've restored the draft page so you can continue to work on it. It can be found here. Mike V • Talk 14:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I just wanted to check with you and see if you believe the page was ready to be Published or if there were more requirements that needed to be met — Preceding unsigned comment added by MattyFredrick (talk • contribs) 21:53, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Civic Tenth Generation

Why did you delete the page for 10th Generation Honda Civic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smallweapon28 (talk • contribs) 13:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Mike V. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Do you see what I see?.
Message added 02:41, 15 June 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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

GAB^gab 02:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

RevDel

Could you please delete the last two revisions at "Benfica" redirect? The first edit is an outrageous insult. SLBedit (talk) 23:34, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the revision, I don't believe that it is excessive enough that it requires the removal from public view. It's appears to just be general vandalism. Mike V • Talk 15:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

The insult is permanently visible in the history page. SLBedit (talk) 15:28, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

The community has placed limits on what may be hidden through the use of revision deletion. The criteria prohibits the removal of ordinary incivility or personal attacks. Mike V • Talk 15:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material SLBedit (talk) 15:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

It is not grossly insulting or degrading. It is just one word inserted into a redirect. This is for material that excessively violates our BLP policy or is an extended tirade of abuse towards an individual. Mike V • Talk 15:40, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

So the crime does pay. Okay. SLBedit (talk) 15:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For providing the community with the information needed to make an informed decision about TheREALCableGuy's unblock request I award you the Barnstar of Diligence. HighInBC Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 14:36, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Mike V • Talk 15:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Lokalkosmopolit/Dorpater sock

Hi, you blocked User:Dorpater [22] as a sock puppet of indef blocked User:Lokalkosmopolit. He's back [23]. I filed an SPI but since he's not even pretending to be someone else I'm not even sure if that's necessary [24]. I was actually going to ignore him as long as he stuck to making minor edits but sure enough, he jumped right back into the controversy [25], [26], [27], [28], [29]. They already managed to get got blocked for edit warring [30].Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

If anyone should be blocked, then this is Volunteer Marek who keeps blindly reverting my constructive edits, bordering on 3RR. I fixed linking, he reverted it [31]. Having read in the article on Dmytro Korchynsky a controversial statement, I checked the source linked in Ukrainian, saw that the article indeed contained faulty claims, so I fixed it. VM keeps blindly reverting to the inferior version [32], [33]. 77.93.29.14 (talk) 02:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

From WP:3RR: The following actions are not counted as reverts for the purposes of 3RR: ... Reverting actions performed by banned users in violation of their ban, and sockpuppets of banned or blocked users.. So reverting you is not edit warring. And if you really wanted to make constructive contributions then you should've thought of that before getting yourself banned for stalking and harassment, then for sock puppeting, then for sock puppeting again, then for sock puppeting AND harassment, then for sock puppeting again and so on.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for 6 months. Mike V • Talk 20:50, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

SPI case regarding a long-term abuser

Hi Mike,

I want to congratulate you for your successful works on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tirgil34 cases. Could you please check the last case? It should be checked before the accounts become "stale". 'Cause many of them were abandoned about a week ago. Bests, 46.221.229.167 (talk) 10:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

It looks like Bbb23 has just checked the recent batch of accounts listed. Mike V • Talk 15:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah but he leaves group 3 to other checkusers. Despite they are confirmed socks, their IPS are not related to group 1 and 2. Probably due to using proxies. Can you please check? 46.221.198.228 (talk) 15:46, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I didn't leave the analysis to other checkusers, and proxies aren't an issue. Group 3 is independent of Tirgil34, and the behavioral analysis needs to be done within the group.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:03, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

PS: I recommend you to read the " Habitual behavior" section on WP:Tirgil34. Particularly read the diffs regarding "Denying his own sockpuppetry". 46.221.198.228 (talk) 15:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

46.221.198.228 and MikeV - Have MikeV's talk page on my watchlist and saw this. Encountered an account recently that might be related? Contribs here. I am unfamiliar with this sock, so thought I'd check. I suspect the linked user is a sock given that they dug up code for a table from 3 years ago... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 15:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Hmm...I am not sure about this user, since i did not check his contributions. However, i am dealing with an annoying sock making unrelated and ridiculous comments on the SPI page. 46.221.198.228 (talk) 16:02, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay. Just thought I'd share! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:03, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

@NeilN:, @JamesBWatson: it would be nice, if you also take a look at the SPI case. This puppet show should be stopped. Additionally, @Bbb23: i think i have provided the behavioral evidences with diffs on the SPI case. And note that we are dealing with a long-term abuser who has been socking about 5 years with countless sock tricks in order to escape SPI. See LTA. So, please be less conservative regarding the case. Best regards...46.221.198.228 (talk) 16:49, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

help, pls

sorry for spelling & brevity, typing fr phone - i'm abt to get TBAN'ed due, in part, to !votes generated by the sockmaster who has been targeting me for the last 6 months; u'v previously dealt with it here [34] - can you pls expedite a look at this [35]? i promise 2 apply for a WP:RENAME soon so he/she can't continue tracking me but just need a little help in interim - thx LavaBaron (talk) 00:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't believe the IP address is related to the sock master. I've added a few thoughts on the case page. Mike V • Talk 01:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Regarding recent block

Just FYI, the page I nominated for CSD that you just deleted and blocked was also the subject of an email to OS regarding CHILDPROTECT. Not sure if you saw that. Just wait to let you know. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I've replied to the request. Mike V • Talk 03:27, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Jytdog

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 V • Talk 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 V • Talk 03:12, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Attack account

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 V • Talk 00:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I did not know that about you. ;) HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 03:16, 30 June 2016 (UTC)