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.

Moroccan genetics

I hope you don't feel I'm using you as a "tame admin" (well, not too much).

I'm in a bit of a tricky "am I reverting vandalism or edit warring" situation on this one. However, 41.x IPs who have only edited this page have been putting it back to their preferred version (including a tranche of material from a circa-1920s "scientific racist" which means I'm pretty sure it's bogus) since, well, forever; not touching the talk page since I've had my eyes on it (they may have done so earlier, especially if Calssico is them.)

There seems to have been a more, ah, even-handed edit war in 2014, but near the end of that it was semi-ed for a week and then for 3 months (by an admin who has since apparently left WP, or I'd ask them). Could you take a look, please? Pinkbeast (talk) 11:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

YGM

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.

RO^(talk) 22:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Rm talk page privileges for suspected sock IP

Given the edits going on at User talk:94.197.45.151, should the IP (and/or the blocked range) have talk page privileges revoked? RA0808 ^talk_contribs 18:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

It looks like Kudpung revoked talk page access for the IP. Mike V • Talk 18:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015

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.

TheReviewingOfficial654321 (talk) 20:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Your close of SPI for Brad Dyer

You perhaps did not see the comments HJ Mitchell made in the case below. He said that he reviewed the evidence but was in two minds, and will consult with other admins who are familiar with NoCal. Closing the case would not solve anything because the user is already asking to be unblocked. See User_talk:Brad_Dyer#Review_and_SPI. Kingsindian ♝♚ 02:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

The editor is unblocked now. Kingsindian ♝♚ 04:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I came with the same question. CU was declined because the editor was blocked but that is no longer the case. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, I didn't decline CU. I only closed the case because at the time the account was blocked and the SPI case was a a moot point. Now that the account has been unblocked, the concerns can be re-raised. However, I can't act on evidence I haven't seen. I believe there are two options on how to proceed. You can follow up with HJ Mitchell, who seems to be the point functionary you've contacted. If he feels the private information is enough for a block, he can take care of it. The second option is forwarding the evidence to the functionary team list. (functionaries-enlists.wikimedia.org) We can evaluate the evidence presented and if a check is found to be possible and justified, we'll run one. Best, Mike V • Talk 15:20, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

FYI

Given your knowledge here, here, and here; I'm pingin you in light of this, this and especially this. All of which has led to this hatted discussion, which was continued here. Given the history, I have no wish to deal with this individual any further, and I have no wish to have any more drama after this exhausting past week, so am pinging some admins including you and Bbb23 who did NOT !vote at my RfA (hard to find many - 227 total !votes - whew!) to simply watch these conversations and advise or act if there is any need for action. Montanabw^(talk) 20:49, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you so much for your kindness and understanding. Please have a wonderful day! --A.S. Brown (talk) 00:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! You too! Mike V • Talk 00:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Software glitch?

I don't know how this thing should be, so pardon me if I am basing my question on silly assumption. Your name appears under this list but this log does not mention it. I don't even know in the first place if it should be there, so that is the first question -- should it be there? Second is, how is it decided? What is the procedure? (A link to appropriate documentation page would suffice). Thank you. --AmritasyaPutra^T 07:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Your two diffs above are identical.--Bbb23 (talk) 07:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed the link in-place. --AmritasyaPutra^T 08:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Certain rights changes are made by stewards and listed in a different place. If you look at the top of what you call "this log", you'll see that mentioned along with instructions on how to show those rights changes. Following them, you get this result. It's a bit confusing, but I hope that helps.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit-Happy

I noticed a plethora of contributions in a matter of seconds... are you using an auto-archive script of some sort? Almost positive you must be, but doesn't hurt to check in for the security of your account. --JustBerry (talk) 17:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Yep, it's the SPI helper script. Mike V • Talk 17:32, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Evlekis

Hello. Could you please take a look at Special:Contributions/Suomisvenks and Special:Contributions/Tormegz? Based on their style, behaviour and choice of targets (for Suomisvenks me...) there's a well over 50% chance they're Evlekis. Thomas.W ^talk 17:52, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

It looks like Bbb23 has already checked and confirmed the accounts as Evlekis. Mike V • Talk 18:06, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Quick CheckUser requests (Teahouse questions)

Mike, help me out here. I almost never pay attention to these requests. Was I wrong to decline it? I didn't see any difference between the request and an SPI, but you apparently did. Also, will changing the status to "close" cause the bot to archive it? The template is a bit unclear. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't say you were wrong. The case would have been better off with an SPI due to the number of accounts. SPI quick requests are usually for IBPE, blocking IP/ranges for a spam account, etc. I just dug through the contributions and found enough for a check, that's all. If you set the template to close, the bot will archive it in a few days. Mike V • Talk 01:10, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Does a "done" status cause it to archive sooner? "Done" seemed wrong to me because it sounds like I did something in response to the request, but I'm curious how the bot works.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:13, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't know if the bot was respond differently. If I had to hazard a guess, I think it just operates solely on the case closed parameter. Mike V • Talk 01:17, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Mike V -- I have been approached by the people at ATDF on helping them create a Wikipedia entry for Tony Waag. The prior attempt was sent to me in a word document and I have begun looking into it to see how to make it more appropriate for Wikipedia.

Any advice you could share in advance would be greatly appreciated. Thanks

LorrSG (talk) 00:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)LorrSG

Thank you!

Thanks very much for the suppression. GAB^Hello! 21:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

You revdel'd something @ Gaither High School

Can I ask what. Email if you want. 02:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't provide the content of revision deleted material unless there are extenuating circumstances that would warrant it. Best, Mike V • Talk 22:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

SPI archive

Hi, Mike,
I was looking at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Najaf ali bhayo/Archive and it looks like there is a lot of duplicated material, probably copied over from the active page to the archive twice. I wouldn't edit a SPI page but it looks like the first section on the page can be removed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

• I think after histmerging two case archives (which puts the archived cases of the merged-in archive in the top revision), Mike tried to grab the merged-into archived cases from history to paste them back into the top revision, but he must've grabbed the wrong old revision and re-added archived cases that were already there. I've now fixed it all up, I think, but Mike you're welcome to review it and make sure I did okay. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

This is the second time I've seen this happen in recent days so it must be an easy mistake to do. I know that when editors unarchive material from noticeboards, discuss it and rearchive it, the archive often ends up with two versions of the similar content. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that Salvidrim. It looks good to me. Mike V • Talk 21:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Take a look?

Hey. I don't know anyone here but I saw you blocked this person.

Look at the Talk page of user:VinWeasel

I don't know if it's a joke or not.

Anyway, have this for fun:

Darth10000 has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Your kitten must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{subst:Kittynap}}.

Thanks for the kitten! The account was one that I blocked while performing a check. Some people can be... interesting. ;) I wouldn't worry too much about it for now. Mike V • Talk 22:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case proposed decision posted

Hi Mike V. A decision has been proposed in the Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case, which you are listed as a party to. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 20:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC) (via MediaWiki message delivery (talk))

Weird stuff (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MadMans1019)

Mike, you archived this SPI yesterday. Not only is it still on the list at WP:SPI, but it's in a bizarre position. Any idea what the problem is?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I've purged the cache of the case, WP:SPI and the SPI/Case/Overview table, and made a null edit to the case. The bot removed the case in its latest update. I don't have a clue what the issue was. :p ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. At least it's gone now. The SPI that refused to die.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

It's back.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:12, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Fine now. Maybe my null edits a la Salvidrim! just took a bit longer to take effect. Or maybe it's Mike's fault; aren't these all his archivals? :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 17:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

unblock ipv6 request

Hi Mike, You blocked ip 2A03:2880:0:0:0:0:0:0/36 which is very long. One few ip/s used by sockpuppet . In this used many innocent user include they want wikipedia kindly unblock this ip thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.71.152 (talk • contribs)

The post above was made by Najaf ali bhayo (see SPI), i.e. the same person who was using the Facebook-IPs... Thomas.W ^talk 09:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked 119.160.64.0/19 for 2 weeks given the widespread abuse. The IPv6 address has been misused by a number of individuals so it's not going to be unblocked anytime soon. Mike V • Talk 20:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Block evasion related to Ridryman sock case

You blocked 166.172.184.116 based on an ANI report I filed, because the IP was editing disruptively and because the IP was from the same place in Florida, and was doing the same things in music articles as the Ridryman SPI case. You invited me to report to you any new block evasion from the same case.

Today, two IPs showed up doing the same thing. Not so disruptive as yesterday, but this certainly looks like block evasion:

• 166.172.184.122 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 166.172.184.9 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

In the past, these other IPs have been involved:

• 166.172.191.248 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 166.172.184.131 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 166.172.188.24 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 166.172.187.86 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

A rangeblock for 166.172.184.xxx would straddle the most recent IPs. Binksternet (talk) 21:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I've soft-blocked 166.172.0.0/16 for 1 week. Mike V • Talk 21:37, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. It sucks to block an editor from making good-faith changes, but block evasion should not be ignored. Binksternet (talk) 22:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

User rights changes

Hey there, I just got notified that you change a bunch of my user rights, and I was wondering what was going on. Did something happen to my account? If it's not too much trouble, can I get those rights back (except for course coordinator—I 'retired' from the Edu program a while back)? Either way, keep me posted. Thanks much, in advance! Daniel Simanek ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I've restored all the rights save the IP block exemption and the account creator right. IP block exemption is reserved for users who must edit through an IP block and have no alternatives. The account creator right is reserved for active members of the account creations team/education program team. Hope that helps! Best, Mike V • Talk 03:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

User rights changes 2

I had a IP exemption which was just removed (notification points to you). Could it please be re-enabled? 64.131.66.214. Existing justification was that the block was being applied very widely to a set of hosting IPs, rather than through the specific private IP mentioned above that I route traffic through. Many thanks. Opakapaka (talk) 20:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I just ran a check on your account and it appears that you aren't affected by any blocks that would require IPBE. Please note that editing through a proxy is only permitted in exceptional circumstances. Best, Mike V • Talk 01:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The block is for 64.131.64.0/19, which is a huge portion of AS25847, and it is indeed affecting my account since I work from 64.131.66.214. Definitely not an anonymous proxy. Could you kindly reconsider? Opakapaka (talk) 13:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

64.131.64.0/19 is allocated to Servint, which is a web host. Unfortunately, it has also been abused by others so I won't be able to unblock it at this time. Mike V • Talk 23:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry block requests

Hi Mike, thanks for blocking the latest incarnation of Roadcreature/The Jolly Bard. Just for my information, when there's an exceedingly obvious case of sockpuppetry like that, should I be going to ANI or SPI (or somewhere else entirely)? My impression is that SPI can take a fair bit longer (and is for more unclear cases), and since this is an ArbCom case and a long-standing issue, I've been going to ANI as the faster forum. Thoughts? – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 01:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I still would recommend posting at SPI. It helps keep all the accounts at a central location. Usually the cases with straightforward socking and/or strong evidence are expedited. Mike V • Talk 23:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks Mike, I'll do that next time. – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 05:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Dani de santa

Keep an eye on this editor you recently blocked. I recently noticed the user spammed his/her talk page with the hoax he/she insisted on inserting. Might need to revoke talk page access if things get out of hand. Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

You asked for it

You're in, by unanimous consent: [1]. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Possible mistake

Please see here. Could this be a mistake? Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd be very surprised if that was the case. The behavioral and technical evidence that I saw seemed very conclusive. Mike V • Talk 20:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Behavioural too, okay. Dear oh dear. Okay. Many thanks, my friend. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:24, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Why on earth are you starting time ranges at 00:00?

It just invites confusion. Is it the start or the finish of the day. It's absurd. Tony (talk) 14:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. I believe that it makes it more clear by giving the exact time. To my knowledge, we've always used the range of 00:00 - 23:59 UTC to denote the time of the day on Wikipedia. (After all, I've never seen a post signed with 24:00.) Also, it's the exact time we use to compile the eligible voter list, when the nominations open, and when voting begins. (As opposed to using 00:01.) Mike V • Talk 16:09, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Exact time is any time you say it is. Why do you persist with 23:59, then? You seem to hope that anglophones (many of whom are not very familiar with the 24 h clock) will instantly understand that 00:00 Thursday is the midnight at the start not the end of Thursday. 00:01 and 23:59 are standard—when I co-ran the ArbCom elections two years in a row, that's how it was done, after prior confusion. The WMF elections are done that way. Why are you being so resistant to a simple correction that will speak clearly to everyone? Tony (talk) 04:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Nice timing: someone else has complained. Tony (talk) 12:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Mike_V, although I did not notice this at the time (when ACE2015 first got documented), and although I think Tony's verbiage is needlessly aggressive, the substantive point is correct: the best way to minimize hypothetical confusion, is to start all phases at 00:01 UTC, and then document it as such. In other words, don't just say that the timespan is from 00:01_Z on the Xth thru 23:59_Z on the Yth... actually make those the start-times (exactly 00:01:00.000 zulu) and the cutoff-times (exactly 23:59:00.000 zulu). Make sense?

  p.s. There is actually a story about Teddy Roosevelt, and a pocket veto, or something like that... timespan #1 ran until noon on a certain day, and timespan #2 went into effect after noon on that same specific day, so TR wrote up an executive order that was dated for exactly noon... and thus was subject neither to the former piece of legislation, nor the latter piece of legislation.  :-)     My thanks for doing the arb-election-work, appreciated. And p.p.s. for the current year I don't think switching everything from 00:00 to 00:01 is productive, I'm just leaving you this note w.r.t. the procedures used in ACE2016. Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Currently the timestamp at Special:SecurePoll says "00:00, 7 December 2015" which is slightly different from "23:59, 6 December 2015" ... should one wish to be pedantic, that is.  :-)     Those literally-last-minute votes could just swing the balance of the election!!111!!  ;-)     Presumably this cannot be adjusted whilst the vote is actually open, without risk of gumming up the works, but I will leave this note here anyways, so that next year somebody may remember to exactify the timestamps so that we can all synchronize our wiki-watches, or whatever cliche you prefer. p.s. On another matter of ease of use, can the table of elections at Special:SecurePoll be sorted in *reverse* chronological order? Right now, the 2009 election is at the top of the table (albeit greyed out), and the currently-open ACE2015 election is at the bottom. It might also help, if you put an intro sentence saying to "Please click the blue Vote link next to the election you wish to participate in." Thanks, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 14:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Challenge

Why was the check on Jack the Vicar run? NE Ent 23:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Evidence was submitted to the functionary list that strongly suggested that JackTheVicar was a sock of ColonelHenry. There was enough evidence to perform a check for a technical connection and to check for additional accounts. The technical evidence further bolstered the claim and I blocked the account. I'm currently compiling the on-wiki evidence that I can present publicly to the community. Hopefully once that's done it will provide some insight into the matter. Mike V • Talk 02:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Reply

Hi, Mike. This case with the Colonel/Jack is so messed up that I don't want to get involved any further. I'm fairly confident you know everything I've seen and likely more, so there is nothing more I have to add that could possibly help. Good luck with this case. Viriditas (talk) 02:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I understand. I just wanted to make sure that we were aware of every aspect. Best, Mike V • Talk 02:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Arbcom election

Hi. I've made my nomination and I've cleared my browser cache but I'm still not showing on the list. Have I missed a vital step somewhere? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The last step is to transclude your statement to the nomination page. I've done that for you here. Best, Mike V • Talk 11:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much :) --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Mike V. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Re: [Accounts-enwiki-l] [ACC #155461] English Wikipedia AccountRequest.
Message added 07:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

—UY Scuti ^Talk 07:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I've replied to the email chain. Mike V • Talk 01:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

ACE2015

I don't know how or where to lodge an official complaint, but the questionaire about their candidacy that Tony1 is demanding all candidates by email to complete is inappropriate. It is intended for full publication in Signpost during the election and there are no offers to opt out. The questions require candidates to reveal information that they chose to withhold in their nominations or chose not to reply to the users' questions. I think the candidates have been subjected to enough interrogation and attempted breaches of discretion already. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't lie, Kudpung. Tony (talk) 10:32, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Could you forward me the email? Mike V • Talk 14:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

(commenting in my volunteer role, if that wasn't clear) That's a pretty ... interesting interpretation of the questions that I saw, and it's far from unprecedented: Board elections 1, 2, FDC elections 1, 2, and Board elections 3. To the best of my knowledge, no one else objected to similar lines of questioning for any of these five articles. Best, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• I don't really see a particular problem with it. The SP has run similar things multiple times before without complaint and simply not responding seems like a reasonable way to opt out. Or simply replying in the requested 75 words "I prefer to decline to complete the scoring you have requested." Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Here's my thoughts: I don't see why the questions couldn't have been posed to the candidates on-wiki. The candidates would have the same opportunity to respond or opt out. I would strongly discourage using a default value if a candidate chooses not to respond, especially when it's in the middle of a 1-7 scale. A neutral response is not the same as not answering. (e.g. If 2 candidates respond with a value of 1 to a question and 21 opt out (resulting in a value of 4), the "average" appears to be 3.74). I would have also clarified how the data would be presented. Would it be anonymous, aggregated, or directly linked to their account? A number of the questions need more elaboration than just a numerical value and a couple of sentences. For example, "The WMF should take more responsibility for managing issues related to editors who are minors." (I'm assuming you're referring to protecting minors against predators and not, say, oversighting underage editors disclosing their personal info.) I believe it's a fair assumption that most editors (if not all) would encourage the Foundation to do their best to protect minors. However, the Foundation likely requires a higher burden of proof before OFFICE banning a user. I'd bet that it would have to stand up in court and definitely prove that the individual is linked to the account and the alleged inappropriate action(s). If they even get one instance wrong, that's going to burn up a lot of legal's time and donor money to resolve a defamation of character lawsuit. The amount of time that it takes to compile, verify, and present this information speaks to why there's a delay between when the issue is reported and when a ban is enacted. Also, there were questions that carried an inherent bias. For example, instead of saying "We saw ArbCom at its worst in the way it handled the Gamergate case." it would have been better to word it more neutrally, "I was satisfied/dissatisfied with the way ArbCom handled the Gamergate case".

With all that being said, I don't think there was malicious intent here and there isn't any need for warnings, sanctions, blocks, etc. I would encourage the Signpost editors to consider an on-wiki approach for transparency and to review the questions that are asked and how they are asked. Mike V • Talk 01:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Remember that you have no scope in making editorial decisions for the Signpost. That is the role of the Editorial Board. Nor was the Board's permission sought to forward a private email. If you want to play a role, inquire about it with the editor in chief. Otherwise, please stick to your role in running the election. Your opinions concerning that private email are beyond your scope (and possibly your skill-base). Actually, it's pretty impudent to be publishing information related to the private email: I suggest you remove it. Tony (talk) 01:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

First, please do not remove constructive comments from others on my talk page. (Kevin's) Second, my comments on the questionnaire were in my personal capacity, not as an Election Commissioner. It was my hope that you would take into consideration these comments to improve upon your coverage of the election. In regards to your polling methodology, there wasn't a proper symmetry in the questions being asked and the extreme questions will likely lead to a central tendency bias. Finally, I would appreciate if you could avoid making assumptions on my skill-base and using a condescending tone in your replies to me. Mike V • Talk 02:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

As EIC, I would like to publicly state my concurrence with Tony here: we made a deliberate editorial decision to handle this coverage the way we did, as we have with many major elections before (as per Ed's links above). No candidate is required to participate in the survey, but for many voters who do not have the time to pore through long question pages, this is a helpful "reader's digest" snapshot of the field. With that said, we would appreciate you respecting our editorial prerogatives thereof, and not prematurely publishing the questions we asked, which we will contextualize for readers in our upcoming edition. Thank you, Go Phightins! 02:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Adding my concurrence here, again in my volunteer capacity. I don't think Mike's thoughts were malicious, Tony, but I do think that they were far out of scope of his official role--and while I assume he commented in his unofficial capacity, he was approached by Kudpung in his official capacity. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Mike, Likert-scale propositions are meant to be expressed with high certainty so that respondents can scale themselves against them. Please ensure that you understand the process before making accusations of "inherent bias". Tony (talk) 02:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Tony1, please see my longer reply below, but in short, how can Mike (or anyone for that matter) understand the process, since we cannot see the process, here on-wiki? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• I'd like to see a list of the questions, if someone is willing to forward it to me. (got one, thank you) --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
• Mike you are welcome to share any concerns you have with questions privately via email, but I would appreciate if you would remove your comment about the question regarding GamerGate until we publish our story. Contents of a private email should not have been leaked publicly without the permission of the sender. Go Phightins! 03:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Mike V, first you show astounding ignorance of questionnaire construction and statistics. Second, you seem to confuse appearances of acting in your official and private capacities; that poor management of COI appearance is a serious failing for someone running an election. Third, you seem to think it's just fine to publish the contents of private emails without permission or warning. It's the height of arrogance (and I've seen glimmers of this in your prior behaviour). You are not showing yourself to be fit to be involved in running the election. Tony (talk) 03:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
    • That's ... suboptimal, Mike. All I've seen before from you (and/or interactions with you?) has been positive, but as I implied above, you were asked a question in your officially elected capacity. To reply in your personal capacity is extremely deceitful. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I know there's bit of a pile-on here, and I'm sorry about that and about the tone of some of the comments here. I understand why you might want to be defensive and dig in your heels. But think about what you're doing here: you're posting excerpts from a private email that you received in an official capacity. To do such a thing in a personal capacity is inappropriate as well, but your claim that you did it in such a capacity is not consistent with Kudpung's post above, where he clearly indicates he wishes to make an "official complaint". I'm sure your intentions were good, but this was a bad call. Gamaliel (talk) 04:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• This is a strange definition of "private email": sent to 18 people, by an organized Wikiproject (or however you want to think of the Signpost) with the results to be published. I'd actually call it a public email, with direct and obvious public effects, that is inexplicably being hidden from view. Again, I'd like to see a copy of it. (got one, thank you) --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• Do emails become public based on the number of recipients or the contents of the email? What about either of those facts makes it appropriate for someone acting in an official capacity for the encyclopedia to reveal the contents on the encyclopedia? Private emails should not become public simply because someone comes up with a justification, that's not an appropriate call for someone in an official capacity to make. We shouldn't throw out the rules and mores governing how people are supposed to handle private email simply because you don't want to wait a couple of days to read the questions when they are published in the story. Gamaliel (talk) 14:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

If we're just going to play word games, and confuse assertions with facts, then I can do that too: Public emails do not become private just because someone calls them that. And my motivations don't become lame and shallow just because you choose to assume that for a rhetorical flourish. But this interaction has helped me decide who to vote for, so thanks for that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

You're right, I've read my comment again and in my last sentence I favored glibness over assuming good faith, and I apologize. I was tempted to let this pass and not comment lest you think I was vote grubbing, but if I was interested in being political I never would have jumped into this conversation in the first place. I don't think people's motives are the point here, whatever they are, positive or negative, well-thought out or shallow. If you want to talk about word games, how does an email sent privately using the private Wikipedia email system from one private user to another private user become defined as public by someone acting in an official Wikipedia capacity? Because that's the crux of the issue to me, not claims of transparency or whatever people's motives are for violating the rules. Gamaliel (talk) 15:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Kudpung has a point. A couple of these questions seem pretty leading to me, to the point where if I was a candidate I'd consider not answering them. But with the scoring system imposed, refusing to answer a dumb question results in a number that implies you partially support a dumb thing. Since I don't want to muddy the issue by freaking out the Signpost Editorial Board and using a real example from their secret email, let's say one of the questions was "Do you support torturing kittens?". If Kudpung, or any candidate, thinks that's a stupid question and refuses to answer, his response is going to be reported as a 4 (Don’t know or can’t decide). If you guys are OK with me using one of the actual questions, let me know and I'll swap it out for this example.

Working out bugs like this *before* you just publish the results is a good reason to publish the questions online ahead of time. Some people think ArbCom does too much work on their mailing list, and some don't think that, but at least ArbCom has a rationale for keeping some of it out of the public eye. What possible reason does the Signpost Editorial Board have for not just publishing the questions? In the mean time, poor information is worse than no information, and I'd suggest candidates not answer any of the questions under the current setup. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

This is a discussion worth having. Are the questions loaded or do people not understand how Likert scales work? Should the Signpost have crowdsoured the questions? Should the Signpost have asked for public input beforehand? Perhaps that is what they should have done (I say they here because I played no role in these decisions this year), or perhaps that is something we should try next year. There are good arguments on either side of these issues, I suspect. But these are separate issues from the appropriateness of an elections official revealing private email sent to him in his official capacity. Gamaliel (talk)

How can we see if the questions are loaded, without being able to see the questions? Similarly, how can we judge if the statistical methodology is being applied correctly, without being able to see the methodology? My question is not merely whether the signpost should crowdsource the questions, but rather more fundamentally, why isn't the special report being worked on here, on-wiki? Why are the questions being composed and selected and elided, off-wiki, is just the first question... why are the questionnaires being sent quasi-privately-slash-quasi-publicly via email plus {{ygm}} template-spam, why are the results being analyzed off-wiki, why is the draft-article being written off-wiki, and why is the editing of said final-article being done off-wiki? The regular arb-report column is on-wiki already, for instance. I do fully understand that there are probably technological reasons for all this, related to ease of capture/processing/charting the questionnaire-data, and wishing to avoid accidental publication of buggy data, and perhaps proprietary software is involved. It may also just be a cultural artifact, of covering board elections and such (where not all the participants are most comfy with on-wiki-everything style). But for an arbcom election, the overall effect, the appearance to the untutored eye of an outsider (or indeed to the wiki-eyes of an insider), is like a case of poor civic hygiene. So! To wash our hands of poor civic hygiene... errr, to short-circuit the gordian knot... well, or whatever horribly mixed metaphor you prefer... is there any reason that all the questions, and all the answers received so far, cannot be published on-wiki, now, or ASAP? I understand that the signpost prefers to keep their scoop under wraps, but I also see this as a PR problem going forward, in future elections of various sorts. Transparency is good, and the appearance of non-transparency is bad, even when nothing untoward is happening. Doing all the work on-wiki, is the Right Thing, methinks. Does this make any sense? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• To address a few points raised, I do not recall a detailed discussion on how to handle/score candidates who do not answer a certain question, and obviously, if a candidate refused to participate in the survey, we would not simply publish a list of "4s" next to their name. That is something we would discuss, but based on our past experience -- again, see the links -- response of this nature has not been common. And to reiterate, candidates do not have to participate in the survey. It's just that, a survey. Participate or don't, but this is the framework we are following this year. Go Phightins! 17:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure the Signpost ought to be preaching about "private email". If you're approaching someone for comment for publication, then your questions are surely no more private than the answers you get. The Land (talk) 13:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• If anyone wants to forward me the email, I will happily post all the questions onwiki. Here's a hint, unsolicited email is not private. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• As one of the recipients of the survey, I have to say it's a fairly lousy piece of work. The Gamergate quoted above is an egregious example: one could disagree for two rather opposite reasons -- because one feels the decision was good, or because one feels it was bad, but others were significantly worse. The inflexible responses here from Signpost staff are enough to convince that this survey was not properly thought out and is not likely to be appropriately presented. Floquenbeam's comments are particularly well-taken. My decision to respond to the survey, in light of what's been said here, was not well-advised, and I withdraw my response. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

another bambifan?

Does User:JUDYLWB IDOOV look familiar? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Not necessarily sure if it's Bambifan, but it's clear the individual isn't here to edit constructively. Mike V • Talk 23:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Giano

Hi Mike - pinging you both because you were the CU involved and because you're an EC. Could you take a look as his comments on my questions page and either get rid of some of the more inappropriate ones, or respond yourself directly there? He's making it look to be as if all admin coordination offwiki is inappropriate, when if you remember the SPI we were in emails about a few weeks ago, I'm pretty sure you would've blocked me instantly if I posted the same info in public. Giano's questions are primarily motivated towards making me look bad since he dislikes the fact I've supported punitive measures against EC in the past, but I'm a bit worried his fantasies may distract some actual voters. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

kevin, I really think you need to calm down, you are getting dangerously close to WP:NPA and it would be a pity to see you blocked during your election campaign. Giano (talk) 13:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Asking an involved functionary to explain Wikipedia's policies to you isn't a personal attack. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:46, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Content Dispute, Please take a look

Hello,

Your neutral opinion on the content dispute currently on-going at Hadith and Criticism of Hadith will be appreciated. The discussion thread is at: Talk:Hadith#Recent_cleanup_of_huge_chunks. The main issue is the material sourced from Wael Hallaq's paper, sourced from JSTOR, but is also available at: http://www.globalwebpost.com/farooqm/study_res/islam/fiqh/hallaq_hadith.html

Thanks. cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 15:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3 closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. All anonymous IP editors and accounts with less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This prohibition may be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of Pending Changes, and appropriate edit filters.
2. Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to monitor the articles covered by discretionary sanctions in the original Palestine-Israel case to ensure compliance. To assist in this, administrators are reminded that:

• Accounts with a clear shared agenda may be blocked if they violate the sockpuppetry policy or other applicable policy;
• Accounts whose primary purpose is disruption, violating the policy on biographies of living persons, or making personal attacks may be blocked indefinitely;
• There are special provisions in place to deal with editors who violate the BLP policy;
• Administrators may act on clear BLP violations with page protections, blocks, or warnings even if they have edited the article themselves or are otherwise involved;
• Discretionary sanctions permit full and semi-page protections, including use of pending changes where warranted, and – once an editor has become aware of sanctions for the topic – any other appropriate remedy may be issued without further warning.

For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 16:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Time to vote?

It looks like it's time to vote. Shouldn't there be a link on the project page to the voting page? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes it is. I'm working out some of the minor kinks, but then I'll post notices on AN, the watchlist, etc. shortly. For now, if you purge an election page and go to the bottom where the ACE template is or go to Special:SecurePoll, you can vote through those avenues. (Be sure to click on the actual poll and not the test one. It should be apparent if you click the other one, though. :) ) Mike V • Talk 00:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Pretty sure I just voted. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Yep, I just checked the voting log and you are listed. Mike V • Talk 00:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

I believe that User:Chelsea V V may be a sock puppet of User:Ranze. The Chelsea V V account was just created, is reverting edits on Ranze's talk page, and also vandalized an article today. Could you please look into the matter further? Crash Underride 07:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay, after a few minutes of thinking. I realize I don't have a lot of evidence at the moment. However, I would like the user to be watched so we can compare edits, style, etc. to see if it is Ranze under another account. Crash Underride 07:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I too considered reporting this, though we really don't have a lot to go on at the moment. It's very unusual for a new user to jump right into the conflict of a blocked user in their first edits, the fact that the user in question was blocked for sockpuppetry makes it more reason to be suspect. If we get a clearer picture I'll make sure to report it.LM2000 (talk) 17:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@LM2000:, User:Chelsea V V has already been warned, by me for vandalism, and User:PeterTheFourth for WP:3rr also. Crash Underride 19:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Checkuser data between Chelsea V V and Ranze is  Inconclusive. I've blocked Chelsea V V indefinitely for the disruption. Mike V • Talk 20:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Much appreciated Mike. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Crash Underride 20:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

User Chelsea V V has asked about a block notice on their page. And well you should see this edit to see the type of person they are. Crash Underride 20:07, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I caught sight of that edit. As for the substance of the edit, the block notice is provided to the user when he or she attempts to edit. As for the tone, well, any administrator would take that into consideration if an unblock is actually filed. It's best to not engage with such as person as the behavior will likely to continue. Mike V • Talk 20:10, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not. I just have their talk page on my watch list so I can watch for edits such as that. lol Crash Underride 20:40, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you!

I would just like to offer my thanks for dealing with the ThorLives/Holtj sock puppet. It is appreciated. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:12, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Glad I could be of assistance. Mike V • Talk 01:39, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Tut

I do not take kindly to threats, especially from editors with apparent sub-optimal skills in grasping such concepts as Satire. You appear to be an administrator. That is satire enough in this context. Irondome (talk) 03:54, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I saw the edit you're referring too and I must say, Mike was right. Even on a user's page, that's still defamatory and well, against policy. Crash Underride 04:54, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

There has been a major misunderstanding...Lady Catherine is of course, User:Bishonen, who is a devout liberal. The Lady Catherine is the polar opposite satirical characture of Bishonen and that user guide is a satirical joke...and oftentimes provided opposite "advice" as to whom that character would vote for in real life. I'm also worried that Mike V has possibly exceeded their administrative rights by blocking one and warning another of a block while engaged in a content dispute claiming it as BLP enforcement. This block should be lifted immediately.--MONGO 05:54, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Flattery will get you nowhere, MONGO. Lady Catherine is most emphatically, and regrettably, not my sock. I wish the voter guide by my actual sock, User:Bishzilla (a devoutly liberal Jurassic creature), were half so zany! Bishonen | talk 11:12, 27 November 2015 (UTC).

Lady Catherine is not Bishonen! All of Bishonen's socks have "Bish" or "Fish" in their name...they are easy to spot. I thought everyone knew about this other editor's royal, satirical alter ego. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

AN/I

Mike V, I have asked for a review of your block of Jbmurray at AN/I here.--MONGO 07:33, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

MikeV - your block was sound. BLP applies everywhere. This is truly a sad day for wikipedia when an admin applies policy but gets reverted. KoshVorlon 12:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

The Crow Award!

		Crow Award
		Crow has given you The Official Crow Award! Thanks for being on top of things! CrowCaw 01:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

File:A Charlie Brown Christmas trade ad.jpg

The image was replaced without further explanation. I want to add this as a second infobox image. Then I want to tag both this and the intertitle image as FFD. Two can be temporarily used until consensus would agree to use either image. --George Ho (talk) 00:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Forgetting something? --George Ho (talk) 04:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

It looks like Graeme Bartlett beat me to it. Mike V • Talk 22:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Oversight questions

Hi Mike, I am a relatively new editor and I want to ask you, what warrants as suppressible information? You had suppressed my edits here and I am curious. Thanks. Zyc1174 (talk) 12:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

@Zyc1174: I've replied to you by email. If you have any other questions, it would be best if you reply by email as well. Mike V • Talk 17:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@Mike V:Thanks. I'll check my email ASAP. Zyc1174 (talk) 23:52, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 28, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#More socking from Supdiop

Could you close this unanimous request and enact please with a range block. There might also be sleepers. Thanks.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:06, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

I am just trying to help!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Factgenerator (talk) 18:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Request to hide edit description

Hi, Please can you hide the description of the edit on PSI_Comp_80 made 23 January 2015. Thanks!John a s (talk) 00:00, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done Mike V • Talk 00:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response, this is the first time I have had to reach out to an admin this way, and the process for removing the description was not that easy for me to find. 14:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by John a s (talk • contribs)

Sockpuppet investigation

Same user but less vandalism? Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ArthurRead1234/Archive MartinSFSA (talk) 12:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman

Hi there,

You are receiving this message as you have been involved with the Kevin Gorman Arbitration case. I just wanted to let you know that the case timetable has been changed - evidence now needs to be presented by 22 December 2015, the workshop closes 31 December 2015, and the Proposed decision is targeted to be posted 3 January 2016.

I would therefore be grateful if you could submit any additional evidence as soon as possible.

For the Arbitration Committee, -- Mdann52 (talk) 09:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	u r actually the nicest person i have seen on wiki all the others are not two sweet and don't even apologize thx again 4 ur goodness :) United kingdoms my home (talk) 22:20, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Mike V. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 02:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

The Avengers 02:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Account Creator right.

Hello, you recently removed my account creator flag due to the fact my tool access was suspended. My access was restored by @FastLizard4: and I was told that I should retain the flag now that my accout was active again. Thanks, TheMesquito^buzz 06:37, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I can confirm that I reactivated TheMesquito before you removed his account creator perm. Trout for you. :P --FastLizard4 (talk•contribs) 06:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Weird, it said suspended when I looked. Anyways, my bad! I've re-added the account creator right. Mike V • Talk 17:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

SPI close

Re: this case - I filed it because the editor denies being a new account of the soft-blocked user. I apologise if that was not clear in my comment. --Regards, James(^talk/_contribs) 06:13, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and happy new year

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Merry Christmas and happy new year. (:

--Pine^✉

Alex

Please support me in encoraging, nay demading, that Basilmathew92 (talk · contribs) stop working on User:Basilmathew92/Draft and instead start editing Alex Mathew directly. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:00, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello RHaworth (talk · contribs), I would definitely go ahead and edit the page Alex Mathew. But then will you be able to change the title from Alex Mathew to Dr.M.M.Alex? That's the only reason I'm not doing any edits on that page. Because the TITLE ITSELF IS INCORRECT (due to a couple of citations that have used the name that way). You could verify his name in more than 40 citations in my draft. I really don't intend to give you such a hard time. But if you are able to change the title, I'll go ahead and make the edits immediately. If not, is it possible to redirect Alex Mathew to Dr. M.M. Alex? Thank you and Wish you a Merry Christmas, Basilmathew92 (talk) 16:33, 24 December 2015 (UTC)Basilmathew92Basilmathew92 (talk) 16:33, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

	Happy New Year!
	Best wishes for a wonderful 2016!---- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:44, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Nizralin

You might want to look at the foot of that page. Fiddle Faddle 22:27, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Or, rather, at this diff Fiddle Faddle 22:27, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Ayoopdog

This user needs a timeout to say the least as you would see from my talk page. Perhaps this is not the first time this user acts this way. InternacionalFutbolista (talk) 13:13, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I've left a note for both of you on his talk page. Mike V • Talk 15:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I didn't do anything wrong. He's attacking and acting like a spoiled brat because a page that he created got deleted and rightly so. InternacionalFutbolista (talk) 17:27, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Making comments like "acting like a spoiled brat" is not appropriate and is not permitted. Mike V • Talk 17:29, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Sulmues SPI

Thank you for your great work at the SPI. Since it is almost a certainty that this individual will sock again (he has been socking since 2010), would it be possible to store the CU logs from this SPI long-term? Thanks again, Athenean (talk) 05:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I've copied the technical data to the checkuser wiki. Mike V • Talk 18:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks. Athenean (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, but ...

Thank you for your notification here, but the level of bureaucracy here is so great that I won't be pursuing this in the EN wikipedia (perhaps I can do some little thing in Commons). Anyway, thanks for trying to explain some of the process. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Hi I am Dhaamin16, on which you sent a message telling about some PII and all, can you please explain because i could not understand. thanks and have a good day! Dhaamin16 (talk) 15:15, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration proposed decision posted

Hi Mike V, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed relating to you in the ongoing Kevin Gorman arbitration case. Please review the remedy or finding of fact and feel free to comment at the proposed decision talk page. Thanks. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 01:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Help

Hi Mike,

I trust you're fine. I'm the Manager of Wikipedia Education Program in Nigeria. I organized Wikipedia Workshop for Students of Fountain University as part of Wikipedia @ 15 celebration. Unfortunately one of my students (Huomerchulow (talk · contribs) is currently being affected by a range block. Others that are likely to be affected by range block include;

• Holajumoke (talk · contribs)
• ABONASY (talk · contribs)
• Rasheedat96 (talk · contribs)
• Classytemmy (talk · contribs)
• Amunique (talk · contribs)

Could you please help? Thanks. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 17:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@Wikicology: I just looked at the range the users were on a few days ago and it seems that they're no longer affected by a block. If there is a different range, have one of the users request an unblock on his or her talk page and I'll see what can be done. Best, Mike V • Talk 23:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Mike. Could you please take a look at the user's talk page? She has made an unblock request. She is still affected by the range block. Warm regards! Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 18:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

@Wikicology: I looked at the block and it's anon-only with account creation blocked. As long as the users are logged into their accounts, they should be able to edit just fine. It looks like she was able to edit recently, looking at her contributions. Let me know if anything is still acting up. Mike V • Talk 00:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Rangeblock help

Hi Mike, was wondering if you could assist in rangeblocking this pest on a Vodaphone block of IPs, see recent blocks here. Looks like 85.255.232.xxx - 85.255.235.xxx. Not sure if my calculations are correct, but would 85.255.230.0/20 do the trick? Thanks, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the range would be 85.255.224.0/20. That would cover all those IPs. Best, Mike V • Talk 02:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Mike, that will help if the problem comes up again (they gave up by the time I posted the first time). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:46, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

BoxOfChickens

Mike, please take a look at this discussion. Please also look at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Fake tech support scam spambot. I've already warned the user for the page moves and for the archiving. I'd like to delete the LTA page for at least a couple of reasons, but I wanted to get your input first.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Quite strange, I'll keep an eye on the user too. I have no qualms about deleting the page. Mike V • Talk 21:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

IPBE request for User:Inufuusen

Hi - I have a UTRS request for an IPBE for this user, who claims to be using a VPN/proxy to edit from China. You placed the IP block, or so UTRS says. :-) Can you confirm the claim for me? Thanks! Katie^talk 20:22, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Looks like Ponyo beat me too it. :) Mike V • Talk 01:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

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.

IPBE

Hello, I read your email. I use TOR and TOR was autoblocked by wikipedia, despite my global-ipblock-exempt. IPBE allow me to edit on en-wiki.

Please contact me if you wan't more informations.

Cordially, --Gratus (talk) 07:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

@Gratus: Thanks for getting back to me. Is there any particular reason that you aren't able to access Wikipedia through your normal ISP? If you wish to discuss this privately, you are welcome to follow up with me via email. Best, Mike V • Talk 23:49, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, see [2]. --Gratus (talk) 06:44, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Protection requests

Please protect Haman (biblical figure) and Charles Martin (boxer). 2602:306:3357:BA0:2C7C:DB86:7026:2A41 (talk) 23:59, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

It looks like the disruptive accounts have already been blocked. No need for protection unless this continues for a while. Mike V • Talk 00:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

IP block issue

I noticed you blocked an IP range that included the IP and edits i did here. Maybe some other IP in the range was abusing wikipedia, but i don't like how wikipedia does range blocks. Wiki should just block the specific IP abuser; even then i think blocking should be a last resort if the abuse is a one-off and can be easily reverted. Only a specific IP/s doing repeated abuse should be blocked after they ignore warnings. Sometimes i find VPN IP's are blocked for years for 1 or 2 abusive edits. This is not fair for those who rely on VPN's and are good wiki editors--as i am. People living in free societies can't appreciate that what may appear to them as an uncontroversial topic to edit can be very risky for people in less free lands. They need to appreciate this and have greater forbearance in dealing with VPN abusing editors and use a more mature and nuanced approach. Perhaps you, in a position of power, can pass on my concerns to editors with similar responsibilities as yourself and initiate changes to wikipedia for the better. Thanks.103.224.241.219 (talk) 00:06, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

As a result of being abused by others, editing through anonymous means has been prohibited by the community. Mike V • Talk 00:33, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

IPBE Questions

If you have a question in regards to the IPBE right change, please leave a message below. Most of the rights were removed for the same reason and it will be easier to address everyone at once. Thank you in advance for your patience, Mike V • Talk 02:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• Please note: If you put your username into the Target field on the user rights log you will be able to see the reason for why IPBE was initially issued and why it was removed. This may help answer any initial questions you may have. Best, Mike V • Talk 05:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Hello. Why did you remove my IP block exemption? Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:06, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: You were initially issued the IPBE right as "part of the toolset to fulfill his roles as regional ambassador". However, your account is not affected by a hard block. As such, the IPBE right is not needed and was removed. Mike V • Talk 05:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Mike V I present Wikipedia to schools, institutions, and community centers. Can you confirm that my account will always be able to edit from public IP addresses, even if there has been previous trouble there? Thanks. I assumed that I would not be able to edit from places which have school blocks unless I have this userright, but actually, I have trouble understanding what this userright does. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:40, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

IP block exemptions

I'm curious as to why you removed my account from IP block exemptions. - BilCat (talk) 02:10, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

In my case, I often edit from my ISP's public WiFi network, and so having block exemptions is useful. - BilCat (talk) 03:44, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

@BilCat: You were initially issued the IPBE right for being "Caught in hard block". However, you are no longer affected by a hard block. As such, the IPBE right is not needed and was removed. The other IP(s) you have edited is/are not affected by hard blocks either. Mike V • Talk 05:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

IP block exemption for Chrisahn

Hi Mike, looks like you removed my IP block exemption. Why? Could you revert that? Sometimes I work on Wikipedia in a place that's blocked. (Or used to be blocked, maybe the block has been lifted?) See User_talk:Chrisahn#IP_block_exemption for details. Thanks! Chrisahn (talk) 02:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

@Chrisahn: The block that previously affected you is no longer in place. As such, IPBE is no longer needed. Mike V • Talk 05:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Geraldo Perez

I edit through a VPN which is normally blocked when I am in public wifi locations. Main reason I had IPBE. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Similar concern here. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 03:09, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez and Biosthmors: As noted on the IPBE page, editing through a web host, proxy, and/or tor is only permitted in exceptional situations. Typically, this includes having a credible concern for your physical well being or actively editing from a country that restricts access to Wikipedia. As this does not seem to be applicable to your situation, editing through a VPN is not permitted. If you wish to secure access to your main account, I would encourage you to create alternate accounts to use in insecure areas. Mike V • Talk 05:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

My IPBE

My IPBE was also unexpectedly removed. I'm not currently editing at my usual home location so it may appear it's not an issue at this time. But this appearance might also be a temporary condition. - Brianhe (talk) 03:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

@Brianhe: I've reviewed your account and it appears you are no longer affected by auto-blocks. If this becomes an issue, please let me know and I'll be glad to help you sort it out. Mike V • Talk 05:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Me too

I edit from two different mobile devices and two different hardwire networks from two different providers. I'm guessing this is some bureaucratic thing I don't understand, but wouldn't have been better to explain first, then do it? John from Idegon (talk) 03:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: I've reviewed your account and it appears that you aren't affected by any hard blocks. As such, you should be able to edit fine without IPBE. Mike V • Talk 05:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

So under which of the 4 points in the checkuser policy did you run the tool on my or any of these blokes' edits to determine this? Did you have any consensus to do this? If so, where can it be viewed? My local Wal-Mart store has an employee standing at the door checking receipts from shoppers on their way out the door. That pisses me off and I absolutely will not comply with their requests. Every editor here on this page is an editor with a good reputation. The exemption would not have been given otherwise. This seems like considerable unneeded bureaucracy. So when the inevitable little puke gets my range blocked again, I have to hassle again with getting exempted again? It had better be for a better reason than "you say so." John from Idegon (talk) 05:38, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, reading further down the page, I see you are taking your justification from the exemption policy. The issue is "not expected to re-occur." I would anticipate it to reoccur. I'm on a pay as you go provider, a notorious location for vandalism edits. My question is what purpose is served by doing this? The only possible source of problem would be me and I have 42,000 reasons for you to think that's not a problem. All it will take is one tenacious little puke to get a hair up his butt one night for this to create a problem for me. In short, it appears you have done a bunch of work that does no good for anyone and could cause problems for a bunch of trusted editors. Quite a waste of everyone's time IMO. John from Idegon (talk) 05:54, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm also concerned about the way this was handled. Publicly confirming that certain users were or were not covered by rangeblocks seems to be against the spirit if not the letter of maximizing protection of private information. Additionally, in at least one case it appears that you've revealed information contained in a private mail from an editor to [email protected], which the editor appears to have been taking pains not to discuss here. - Brianhe (talk) 09:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Me too

Can you let me know why this has been done. I still need IP block exemption. Kleinzach 03:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

@Kleinzach: A review of your account shows that you have access to normal ISP. Per the policy on IPBE, it seems you no longer need it.(The conditions for granting this are that: the editor's normal (non-proxy) IP address will be disrupted by an IP address block that is placed on a range they usually edit on, through no fault of theirs. Mike V • Talk 05:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Same Here

What's the deal? Why would this happen? Looks like many others have the same question for you and we are being ignored. JOJ ^Hutton 03:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

@Jojhutton:: After reviewing your account, it appears that you are no longer affected by auto blocks. (The original reason IPBE was issued.) You should be able to edit without IPBE normally. Mike V • Talk 05:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Same Here

I also want to know why my IP block exemption was revoked. Lighthead ^þ 03:56, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

@Lighthead: After reviewing your account, it appears that you are no longer affected by auto blocks. (The original reason IPBE was issued.) You should be able to edit without IPBE normally. Mike V • Talk 05:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Well the last time this happened a few years ago where some random user with admin tools decided on his own to remove the exemption, I was immediately affected. Please reinstate that exemption. 107.72.98.146 (talk) 13:01, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Mike's log comments

Mike's comments in the log may be interesting while we're waiting for his response. The usual comment is: Removing IPBE, no longer affected by blocks. Chrisahn (talk) 04:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Why?

Nergaal (talk) 04:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

@Nergaal: After reviewing your account, it appears that you are not affected by any blocks. You should be able to edit without IPBE just fine. Mike V • Talk 05:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Color me curious as well

Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 05:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: You were initially issued an IPBE because you were caught in a range block. This block has since expired and you should be able to edit just fine. Mike V • Talk 05:23, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

IP block exemptions

I would be grateful for a word of explanation or reference to a policy with regard to the cancellation of IP block exemptions. Oyoyoy (talk) 04:25, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Um, yeah, what's going on? Legoktm (talk) 04:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

@Oyoyoy: You were initially issued IPBE because you were affected by a CU block. It was removed because you were inactive and it no longer seemed needed. After further review, it appears that the CU block has since expired and you should be able to edit fine without IPBE. This review falls under the IPBE policy stating that CU may be used to verify that it is still needed. Mike V • Talk 05:31, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Kingjeff

An explanation would be good. Kingjeff (talk) 05:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

@Kingjeff: You were initially issued IPBE for the reason of "a'. After reviewing your account, it appears that you are not affected by any blocks, so you should be able to edit without IPBE just fine. Mike V • Talk 05:31, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Mike, I just saw that you have removed my IP Block Exempt right. Is there any specific reason for that? Thanks in advance! Shovon (talk) 05:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

@Shovon76: Hello, Your account was originally given IPBE because you were "caught under a proxy block". However, after reviewing your account it appears that you are no longer affected by any blocks and should be able to edit without IPBE just fine. Best, Mike V • Talk 05:38, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! :) Shovon (talk) 06:04, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Reviewing accounts?

Hi Mike, I'm also affected, but as I can edit your talk page it seems I actually don't need the exception any more. However, I'm really curious about your many statements above that you "reviewed" different accounts. What do you mean by that? Did you perform checkuser scans to these accounts with the purpose to find out the IPs they are regularly editing from? If so, is this behaviour covered by the en.wp checkuser policy? Thanks for your explanation, cheers from Germany, Yellowcard (talk) 08:24, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Gratus

I love the trust that you (wp-en policy) give to an administrator of french Wikipedia wicht has global block exempt. I can edit on all wikimedia project without en-wp, logic. If you don't allow me to edit, I contributed everywhere except the more important wikipedia's language. It's sad :( --Gratus (talk) 11:43, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

No longer IP block exempt

Could you explain why I am no longer IP block exempt please? DuncanHill (talk) 10:45, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

IP block exemptions for me

Hi Mike V, apparently you have removed those or perhaps they expired. I am still very frequently on mobile connections with shared IP pools and NAT, so if it would not cause any problems it could be a great help for me to have those. TIA Richiez (talk) 11:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

IP Block Exempt

Hi Mike,

You just removed my account from IP Block Exempt. Any particular reason why? Unless some major changes to the block tables were made, my work address is still in the block list (the whole chunk of IPs assigned through our provider is). Thanks, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 13:43, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi again, I've tested, and the proxy block cleanup seems to have solved my problem, so, no problems here. Thanks Mike! Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 15:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)