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.

Another one

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.

Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:59, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Blocked. Mike V • Talk 17:05, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Kurzon back?

Hi, Mike V. Since you were involved in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kurzon/Archive, I thought I should alert you to an apparent new sockpuppet that I reported at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kurzon. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:29, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

2016 ArbCom Election EC

Hi Mike, Just poking you to see if you are interested in being on the EC again this year. If so, the nomination page is here. We can always use some institutional memory. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, it slipped my mind this year. I've offered to throw my hat in the ring to help out and train others if needed. Best, Mike V • Talk 15:23, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Block clarification

A few days ago you blocked Harpoon Trigger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and named some other accounts in the block log. Was that a checkuser block? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Nope, a checkuser block has to be indicated in the block log.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:12, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Bbb23 is correct. That block is a normal administrative block. While I could tie the accounts on a technical basis to the accounts listed, I could not identify a specific master account given the limits of the checkuser tool. Thus, I'm willing to allow any potential appeals to occur through our usual guidelines. Mike V • Talk 15:23, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks both of you for clarifying. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:28, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Possible quack

Hi MikeV. I just noticed that a new account has been created by User:IamUrian, apparently to edit articles related to Father Saturnino Urios University and Butuan. This was the same genre of articles that User:Ronald Galope Barniso, User:KatorseNiAmang and User:Anitnovic2016 were focusing on before they were blocked per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ronald Galope Barniso/Archive. In particular, this post seems to indicate that there might be some connection between the blocked accounts and "IamUrian". It might be a bit early perhaps, but it does seem to be a case of WP:QUACK. Please advise on how to best proceed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:39, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi again MikeV. Just for reference, IamUrian, KatorseNiAmang and Anitnovic2016 have been confirmed by checkuser to be socking on Commons. The Commons SPI link for reference is c:Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Anitnovic2016. I'm not sure, however, what this means in terms of Wikipedia. Can the SPI evidence on Commons be used in a Wikipedia SPI? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for point that out. I ran a check locally and found a technical match as well. I've blocked and tagged the account. Mike V • Talk 01:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

No problem. I have a question about Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ronald Galope Barniso. It shows up as a red link and I'm not sure if such a category needs to be created since there are only three accounts listed as socks. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:33, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Probably not necessary. Generally speaking, we create the category when a fair amount of accounts have amassed. Mike V • Talk 02:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Understand. Thanks again for all your help. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:58, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Vandal trying to attack my user pages

A vandal, 24.114.83.151, has been trying to put unwarranted messages on my user page and has just tried to nominate my talk page for deletion. I now am asking for page protection at my user pages. That unregistered user is falsely accusing me of being a sockpuppet for TheGracefulSlick. As far as I am concerned, and I only speak for myself, I wouldn't mind if you do a check to verify that his contention is wrong. TGS and I edit from vastly distant locations (2000 mile distance), so I don't understand the frivolous nature of the unregistered user's point. On another matter... I am aware about the inquiry that was done last week regarding TGS. That is an issue on which I have been silent. I kept my silence in the matter, because I did not initiate, nor ask for the inquiry. But, yes I was a victim of ALongStay a while back and it was painful. So, I don't want you to think that by not commenting, that I was not appreciative of your efforts to deal with LongStay. I had concerns about that particular situation long before anyone else here did and I expressed them to directly TGS several months ago, and he assured me that they were not so, so I gave him the benefit of the doubt, and ever since everything has been fine--I came to consider the LongStay issue a thing of the past. I made it my resolve not to judge the situation myself. If I have remained sympathetic to TGS, it is because we have both had a dedication to appreciating and writing about rare 60s music and collaborated on a number of projects. TheGracefulSlick has done a lot of kind things for me which I am deeply grateful. While I have given TGS the benefit of the doubt, I realize that you came to a different conclusion on the matter. I don't pretend to be an expert in the kind of work you do. But, right now there is a situation regarding an unsigned editor who is making a frivolous sockpuppet claim that needs to be put to rest. I am asking for your help. Thanks. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:03, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

It looks like Widr beat me to it. Your talk page was semi-protected for 12 hours and the IP blocked for a week. I've added your talk page to my watch list so I can keep an eye out on it, should it resume. Best, Mike V • Talk 13:43, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:44, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

HI

Hi Mike V,

Thank you for responding to my WP:RFPP request for reduction in protection to pending changes at the article: HI. However, you enabled pending changes but have not removed semi-protection from the page. Just thought I'd let you know so it can be fixed. Thanks! 2601:1C0:4401:F360:28AA:8490:C872:4D54 (talk) 01:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I just double checked it and semi-protection has been removed from the page. I left the move protection as it was (admin move only). (protection log) The log entry that says "Auto-accept: require "autoconfirmed" permission" refers to the pending changes protection. Hope that helps. Please let me know if I can help clarify things further. Best, Mike V • Talk 17:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi again Mike,

(I'm editing from a different IP range, and am the same as 2601 IP above), It appears as though pending changes is clearly not working on the article, and vandalism has resumed immediately after you set it to pending changes... It's too bad that this protection change obviously had no effect whatsoever... :-( 73.96.113.91 (talk) 00:44, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Also, these pages have also been targeted by the same vandal; I'll list these in case if you believe that semi-protection is necessary on these pages too...

• Father (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (would suggest an indef. protection on this one, given that Mother is indef. semi'd.)
• Google Classroom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thanks again, 73.96.113.91 (talk) 00:53, 14 October 2016 (UTC)