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)

FYI. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:41, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for closing. I'll get in touch with everyone later today to get the ball rolling. Mike V • Talk 16:08, 24 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)

UPDATE: HI appears to have been semi'd for 3 months by BU Rob13. Though my request(s) for the other pages still stands. :-) 2601:1C0:4401:F360:F8C0:C377:D884:8FB3 (talk) 02:21, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Emailed a quick mop request...

Thanks in advance! ‑‑Dstone66 ⑆^(talk)⑇^(contribs)⑈ 19:08, 21 October 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.

@Dstone66: All taken care of, thanks for letting me know. Mike V • Talk 23:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Ongoing problem

Hi Mike V, I'm contacting you because I've seen your work in the past and I believe you spend time getting to know each case rather than just skimming the basic details from the top.

I'm contacting you because of trouble with an editor. In addition to me having a positive image of you, it happens you blocked him some time ago for edit warring, but he's been up to it constantly again, at articles Genocides in history and History of syphilis among others.

Many edit warring noticeboard listings have been made but they've just been ended with a warning or "stale" because other editors aren't willing to participate in an all-out constant edit war which would make his edit warring clearer. I've lost count how many editors he has edit warred with now at the first article I mentioned. Everybody other than him just eventually give up because he just reverts even the tiniest change you make.

I am out of options and I beg of you to take a look into the matters, please. Etsybetsy (talk) 13:25, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

To whom are you referring? I'd be willing to take a look, but I need some additional information first. If you wish, you are welcome to email me. Mike V • Talk 01:48, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Urgent: help

Hi Mike V,

I need to report severe vandalism by the user Mohamed_CJ:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mohamed_CJ

He has continuously been making damaging edits to the “RCSI-Bahrain” Wikipedia Page throughout the years, despite warnings from our Irish university (see the talk page): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RCSI-Bahrain

(Redacted)

This Irish university has chosen to be a non-participant of this religious/political movement and the information written by Mohamed_CJ is misleading. We are an Irish medical, nursing, and post-graduate school. The defamation and slandering words of Mohamed_CJ user throughout the years has negatively impacted the reputation of our institution and the recruitment of international students to come to our university. The defamation of this user additionally has a negative impact on our graduates as they seek to become doctors and nurses in other countries, since the Wikipedia page comes up as a top search in Google. Please place a protection on the “RCSI-Bahrain” page to ban any further edits by this user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:F180:3:AD:AD:7C8A:CE24:10A9 (talk) 12:59, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I must inform you that I had to block your IP address range and IP address for multiple reasons. First, the range is a web host and our community has a policy against editing through anonymizing means. Furthermore, for continued violations of our oversight policy I have blocked your IP as well. With that being said, I have reviewed the concerning edit and do not find it to be considered libelous. The material in question is cited with appropriate, third-party sources. If those sources are incorrect, I would encourage you to contact them directly to remove or correct the articles. Once done, I can consider adjusting the content as appropriate. However, if the sources are not mistaken then the removal of the content will require community consensus on the article talk page. Once your block has expired, I would encourage you to initiate a discussion there. It's of the upmost importance that you do not post any personal information again or you will be blocked for a longer duration. Mike V • Talk 20:25, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Another range block for Easy4me

I'm sorry to bother you with yet another request, but can you re-block 68.33.88.0/21? This is an IP range that you blocked several times earlier, including after this SPI case on Easy4me (talk · contribs). Other requests I made were here and here. Easy4me was blocked for disruption, and his IP edits have continued this since his last range block timed out, including removing sourced content and citations (1, 2, 3), changing sourced content (diff), unexplained blanking (diff), and adding unsourced content (diff). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:29, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

No worries, you can contact me at any time. I've blocked the IP range for 6 months. Mike V • Talk 18:22, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

The block on DBrown SPS

Hello. I noticed that you blocked User:DBrown SPS for reasons of sockpuppetry. The blocked user has posted a request for unblock waiting to be reviewed. Just to let you know. Thanks. FixCop (talk) 20:29, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

@FixCop: The block has already expired. Mike V • Talk 20:39, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh I'm sorry I didn't realize he was already unblocked. Thanks anyway. FixCop (talk) 20:43, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism and insults at FC Porto

I have reasons to believe that Tesd52 (talk · contribs) is again vandalizing and insulting me at FC Porto, now as 85.241.157.25 (talk · contribs). The IP is clearly the same person that used IPs 85.243.156.131 (talk · contribs) and 81.193.35.193 (talk · contribs). Before IP had told me to stop editing FC Porto because I'm not a supporter of the club, and now IP implied that I still can't edit the article because "SLBedit" (S.L. Benfica). This has to stop. SLBedit (talk) 22:44, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I just revisited my previous complaints about this "Disruptive anonymous user (Portuguese)" (how I call it at WP:ANI – many reports there about this user). It's definitely the same guy. For instance, 85.243.156.131 first insulted me (as described above) and then discussed with me at Talk:2014–15 S.L. Benfica season like nothing happened before, while disrupting the same article as 85.243.159.176 (talk · contribs). User both discussed and made disruptive edits at 2014–15 S.L. Benfica season with similar IPs. SLBedit (talk) 23:22, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Ongoing issue. SLBedit (talk) 16:22, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

EdJohnston has semi-protected the page for some months. Hopefully that will address your concerns. Mike V • Talk 01:42, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ronald Galope Barniso

Hi Mike V. A recently created account Special:Contributions/Roland321 has been focusing on the same genre of articles that the socks of Ronald Galope Barniso had been editing. Roland321's edits so far include adding files like File:Urios Gym Sidewards.jpg uploaded by KatorseNiAmang, one of the confirmed socks, and File:The FSUU Gym, May2016.jpg uploaded by the sockmaster to various articles. I guess it could could be just a coincidence, but it does seem a bit of WP:QUACK that a new editor would find these unused files on Commons and add them to article just on a whim. Any suggestions on how to best proceed in a situation such as this? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:12, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi again Mike V. just for reference, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi has added Roland321 to the Ronald Galope Barniso SPI. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:32, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

IPBE

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.

--1233^Talk 05:22, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

FYI, if you have to do this again, we have a mailing list already :) (Wikipedia:Administrators/Message list) — xaosflux ^Talk 00:46, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Good to know! :) Mike V • Talk 01:11, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Mass protect the election pages I guess

To prevent things such as this. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 13:22, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Mike V.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:AshleyScreamingEagles.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:AshleyScreamingEagles.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:09, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

CU/OS stats

Does the latest update include the new appointees? (Also, thanks for keeping the stats updated). --Rschen7754 01:29, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

@Rschen7754: Ah, I've added them to the CU stats, but overlooked the OS stats. The totals are correct, though. I just added them now. :) Mike V • Talk 01:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Mike V. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Tweak request

Hi Mike V, can you please reinstate the {{checkuserblock}} template on the block reasoning here? It's possible that it might go unnoticed during the checks performed in ACC. Regards—UY Scuti ^Talk 17:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done Mike V • Talk 19:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Vitamin C

Hi Mike could you take the time to read this [1] and maybe keep an eye on the Vitamin C (singer) article or protect it? Thanks. Caden ^cool 18:35, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Mike V. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 00:07, 28 November 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.

Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Block modification

Please note that I modified the checkuser block you placed at 68.232.71.82 (talk · contribs) in order to remove talk page access. The duration was unchanged. If this is problematic, please feel free to change. Kuru (talk) 01:35, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

That's perfectly fine. There's no issue with revoking talk page access. Mike V • Talk 02:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Honda Civic (tenth generation)

Hello,

the content for the page for the Honda Civic (tenth generation) was not created by User:Pyrusca. He created the Honda Civic 10th generation article with content he'd cut and pasted from the Honda Civic article. Can you please either recreate the page or move its contents back to the original Honda Civic article? Thanks Cleanupmdx (talk) 08:16, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I reviewed the article and it was created by the user. (It's still the same, even if the user cut and paste previous content.) The previous content is still available in the article history page, so you are welcome to restore it if you wish. Mike V • Talk 16:20, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Count d'oultemont

Why is this deleted whitout discussion? Carolus (talk) 15:29, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

As noted in the deletion log, the article was created by a blocked user and meets the speedy deletion criteria. Mike V • Talk 16:20, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I created this Article??? I am not blocked??? It is true that pyrusca made a redirect and draft, but i am the originals creator. Carolus (talk) 21:24, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Amos R. Manning

You deleted Amos R. Manning, a page that I created, as a page "created by a blocked or banned user". Care to explain? bd2412 T 20:29, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

The vast majority of the article content was added by a blocked or banned user. Since it appears that you still want the article to remain, I've reverted it to your most recent contribution in May 2016 and revision deleted the rest of the edits. Mike V • Talk 21:02, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Please take more care in distinguishing article creators from contributors. Cheers! bd2412 T 22:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppet hero (?) is back again with two IP's

Hi Mark V, whatever you do, Pyrusca is back again. 50.195.100.65 : with that one (the origin of the IP gives you the exact spot where he studies), he deleted the whole page of Famille d'Oultremont (French version) two days ago, with the other one 2600:387:5:805::5e (USA), he let me a message on my French version talk page and elsewhere, not far from threatening me. This has to be added to the long list of Winterysteppe' sockpuppets. Would you be so kind to block the IP's ? Thank you. HighLife98 (talk) 23:41, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, On the English Wikipedia, the IPv6 address is already blocked and the edits from the IPv4 address date way back in February of this year. I think we are all set for now here. (Though you are welcome to approach a French administrator to block the IP(s) there.) As for the comment on the French Wikipedia, I'm having some difficulty understanding the message. I'm not sure to whom the individual means by "memeber of the House of Oultremomt who called me a savage" [sic] From what I can tell, the comment doesn't seem threatening, unless there is something that I'm not aware of. Mike V • Talk 01:03, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Castle of Zellaer

I see that Castle of Zellaer has been deleted because it was created by a banned user. I don't know anything about that, but based on the google cached version ([2]), it was a perfectly servicable stub. Would it be possible to bring it back? Furius (talk) 00:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it would be best to restore the article. Permitting articles from banned or blocked users only encourages them to create more accounts, write more content, and then start over when the new account is blocked. Mike V • Talk 00:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

This would seem to be cutting off the wiki's nose to spite its face? Furius (talk) 01:13, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Not at all. There are millions of articles on Wikipedia and hundreds are created daily. Deleting a few articles from a blocked user has a minuscule impact on the encyclopedia. Furthermore, permitting the articles to remain would send a poor message. As a community, we would be saying that we're willing to look pass all the incidents of sockpuppetry, vandalism, personal attacks, harassment, trolling, etc., so long as they created content. It goes against the respectful and cooperative ethos that we strive for. Mike V • Talk 01:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)