User talk:Ivanvector/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

PATTISSON

See also: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PATTISSON

I was disappointed to see the comment about the outcome of the sock puppet investigation. Let me explain myself. I inadvertently created a new account (JohnGT) forgetting that I was already registered as JGTolhurst. I have been involved for some time in trying to correct some errors in reporting that were made by the Fly Navy Heritage Trust and Navy PR in reporting the story of Jock Moffat. These also occur in the Wikipedia entry for Jock Moffat. In attempting to edit the entry I had no intention of undermining the character of this brave aviator nor of upsetting his family after his death. My concern was and remains to ensure that the facts that emerged following the dive on the wreck of the BISMARCK are correctly reported. A definitive account was prepared by Graham Mottram, the then curator of the Fleet Air Arm Museum, and endorsed by the Head of the Royal Navy's Historical Branch. This clearly stated that the torpedo which crippled the ship had been fired from her starboard side and could not, therefore have been dropped by Moffat who attacked from the port side. That in no way diminishes the respect we should have for the courage of all those who took part in the strike. It would, however, be a shame if Wikipedia continues to ignore the facts and perpetuates an incorrect version of events. JGTolhurst (talk) 11:43, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi JGTolhurst, I apologize that it's taken me longer to reply to this than it ought to have. Regarding the sockpuppet investigation, inadvertently creating a new account when you already have one is not necessarily against our policy, so long as you don't then use both accounts to appear as two individuals, or use a second account to edit if your first account is blocked. I don't think you did, but I interpreted "you may well get correspondence from Lord Boyce" as a statement going against our no legal threats policy - while it may not be a legal threat per se to threaten a response from a high-ranking military officer in a civilian environment, it was clearly a forceful use of authority to create a chilling effect. This is a collaborative project and we don't allow such posturing.

Regarding John Moffat (Royal Navy officer) and your edits there, I applaud your effort to correct the historical record, and it seems you're in a good position to do so with access to military historians. The problem with trying to do that on Wikipedia is that Wikipedia relies on information being verifiable to published, independent reliable sources. At this point in time, the sources that appear to be available all seem to agree with the claim that Moffat's torpedo crippled Bismarck's steering, leaving her vulnerable to the next day's fatal heavy bombardment when she would have otherwise escaped to France. The counter-claim that Moffat's torpedo could not have delivered the crippling blow does not appear to have been published, and so we cannot use it; Wikipedia does not publish original thought, and also does not allow synthesis of published sources (such as Cameron's video) to assert novel conclusions not stated by those sources. The path to correcting this error on Wikipedia starts with getting the Fly Navy Heritage Trust (or some other authority) to publish Mottram's findings, and for independent sources to agree that his account is definitive. Perhaps this has already happened, and you know of such a publication?

Please let me know if I can help otherwise, or you may find editors more familiar with this sort of situation at WikiProject Military History. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:10, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ivanvector. My turn to apologise for a late response. Thank you for your advice which I fully understand. I shall not again be using the account that gave rise to the sock puppetry allegation! I am not aware of Mottram's findings having been published but I will investigate. I must correct you on one point, however. The comment about Lord Boyce did not come from me. JGTolhurst (talk) 15:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Malformed SPI

Would you or one of your stalkers mind taking a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gaption. I included an additional bracket here and it eff'd up Twinkle. Thought I fixed it, but the header for the named master isn't showing up. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

•  Done. @TonyBallioni: I prefer users not use "stalker" jargon on this page, it denotes a real-world violent crime which some Wikipedians have regrettably been victims of. I'm surprised an errant bracket made Twinkle mess up that badly, but if it happens again all I did was copy the header code from another open case, all you have to change is a switch for the case name. It didn't affect the case appearing in the open investigations list, so nothing that can't be easily fixed. I'll take a look at the case shortly. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Dups?

Quick procedural question. How do we deal with duplicate cases at SPI? I've come across two of them today. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Article Creator Editor and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Article Creator Editor. Thanks. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:51, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

@Sir Sputnik: the first thing to do is determine which case should be persistent (which is the master) and which one is the duplicate. Then close the duplicate, just leave a clerknote with "this is a duplicate of (link)" and leave it at that. Then the duplicate should be merged into the master, so I suppose in your case you should set the duplicate to "admin" status and request the merge, rather than closing it outright. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:PolitiFact

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:PolitiFact. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Interaction Timeline alpha demo is ready for testing

Hello,

The Interaction Timeline alpha version is ready for testing. The Anti-Harassment Tools team appreciates you spending a few minutes to try out the tool and let us know if there is value in displaying the interactions in a vertical timeline instead of the approach used with the existing interaction analysis tools.

Also we interested in learning about which additional functionality or information we should prioritize developing.

Comments can be left on the discussion page here or on meta. Or you can share your ideas by email.

Thank you,

For the Anti-Harassment Tools Team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 20:59, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! I was leaving comments as you posted this. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Question

Can you please give me a good reason why i am getting a lot of warnings if i am giving a true fact?

ZLL123 (talk) 18:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

@ZLL123: sure, read m:What is a troll?. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:50, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

SPI merges

Could you see to a few merges that Sir Sputnik has requested at SPI? They're marked admin attention needed, but only an admin clerk can handle them. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13 and Sir Sputnik: I absolutely can, but I won't be able to probably before 23:00UTC at the earliest. If nobody beats me to it then I'll take a look. And maybe we do need to have an "admin clerk needed" or "merge needed" status for this kind of situation. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:17, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree that might be useful. In the mean time, any request for admin assistance that's been pending for more than a day or two is generally going to be a case merge. There's enough patrolling admins around these days that requests that any admin can handle get processed pretty quickly. As I write this, all pending admin requests are case merges. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:37, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

91.150.103.211

Hi, VJ-Yugo again. [1] Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:05, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

This looks like a different user to me, but man there's a lot of nonsense coming from the Balkans. I'm keeping an eye on it, anyway; see User:Ivanvector/Serbian Army vandal. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:24, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Tensor product of representations

I would like to draw your attention to the de-redirecting that TakuyaMurata did for which there was a MFD on a Draft space project that constituted the majority of the content that was part of this. Based on the fact that they are also under a Topic Ban related to their Draft space creations, I am appealing to you as the editor and administrator who created the redirect. I also request the advice of Primefac as the administrator who imposed the Topic Ban and who also imposed the deletion of the content at MFD. Hasteur (talk) 02:30, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

@Hasteur: TakuyaMurata is banned from participating in discussions about the Draft namespace and various draft-related policies. He is not banned from writing content, whether he does so in Draft space, his User space, or in the main space. The MfD discussion you refer to closed with a note from Primefac that they would restore the content to be worked on if Taku asked, which he did around the end of October (which you can see in the deletion log at Draft:Tensor product of representations and now in the history at Tensor product of representations). And clearly he has improved it, so it seems the original concerns of the MfD (that the draft was stale, and that Draft space is not for hosting article fragments indefinitely) have been resolved. The only problem here is that Taku did a cut-and-paste move over the redirect, but I have already repaired that and left him a note not to do that again. Otherwise, I don't see a problem here.

If you have a good content-based reason why Tensor product of representations should not be an article, I think you know how to get to WP:AFD. But please also consider not hounding users who are trying to contribute in good faith. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:45, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I assert that after the MFD was sustained, the "good faith contributions" consisted of synonym golf that does not merrit inclusion, but since you've elected to throw in with textbook definition scrapers, I have no choice. Hasteur (talk) 22:20, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Furthermore it is not hounding to keep an eye on editors who have consistently shown an inability to respect the standard practices of the encyclopedia. Hasteur (talk) 22:21, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Like I said, if you don't think it should be included, take it to AfD. There is nothing actionable here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:22, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I concur with Ivanvector's assessment of the situation. The draft was moved (by request) to the user's space, improved, and reached an acceptable-enough state to merit an article. Thanks for letting us know about the copy/paste issue so that it could be fixed. Primefac (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ren Yifan

Hello Ivanvector,

I'm not familiar with the case above, but the nonstandard formatting there is causing it to appear in the list of malformed cases. Are there supposed to be two separate cases, 123Aristotle and Ren Yifan, or is this an incomplete case rename? Thanks ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

@DoRD: Ren Yifan was part of a three-way merge where all three of the cases had histories, so merging them would have created a long and confusing parallel histories situation. Although thinking about it now, I think that it might actually be better to do a proper merge and not worry about the parallel history; this isn't the first time I've had to clarify. Can't do it right now but I'll get back to it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

RFAR section title

LOL. When I first saw "#Statement by Ivanvector (MisterWiki)", I thought to myself "What?! Ivanvector is admitting he's the guy behind MisterWiki?! No way!" Imagine my relief (and tiny bit of disappointment) when it dawned on me what you actually meant. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:04, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Yep. I did a double take on that also.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:09, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Heh, gotcha, I guess. I thought in preview that it might have looked something like that, but it seemed like the simplest way to disambiguate my thread from the other one on the page. I guess a (2) would have been easier.

I guess I'll just go ahead and certify that I'm not working for Mister Wiki, or for anyone. Nobody has ever paid me for Wikipedia contributions, and as a matter of principle I would not accept payments for my edits. I'm not even really comfortable with a few contests we've done that carry a monetary reward. It's ... icky. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:20, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I almost left you a comment encouraging you to change it for this reason; I did a double-take as well. Maybe (Mister Wiki case)? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:25, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Alright, I modified it. If there's one thing I know it's that when three admins knock on your door about something you did, you probably need to fix something. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:38, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Poutine

Sorry for moving your comment BTW—I'm glad you're OK with it, but I should've asked first (especially since I just recommended that someone refrain from making contributions on others' behalf!). I felt that the new categories that were added used pretty heavily biased language, so I made some edits to make them a little less POV, and I thought your vote fit better in the other category. dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 21:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

It does, and thanks. I was discussing just jamming those two headers together, but as long as they're separate my comment should be in the right section. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:22, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Awesome. BTW, I suspect this whole thing is going to have to go to dispute resolution at some point, especially if the RfC fails. If that ends up being the case, which do you think is a better place to head to--DRN or ANI? dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 00:52, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, not ANI, that's not for content disputes. Probably DRN, but I think the RfC will be successful eventually. It might take time for all the participants to find common ground. That's just how it works sometimes. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:54, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth I advertised the RfC at the Canadian Wikipedians' noticeboard and at WikiProject Food and Drink, which hopefully will bring more comments. More editors commenting usually leads to better discussions. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:56, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Great, thanks for doing that. I was thinking of doing the same, but I've been busy. I think you're right about some common ground emerging, too—perhaps I was being too hasty to judge. dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 17:22, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

SPI Quickie

Can you handle the clerk stuff here? It's old enough on the list that I suspect it will be overlooked if I don't prod someone in its direction. (And no action was a perfectly valid outcome for that SPI I pinged you to, by the way. I just wanted some outcome at that point.) ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:58, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

All done. That was ... not so quick. Thanks for the ping anyway. I was going through old open cases earlier today but I didn't go through checked cases. Maybe tomorrow :) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 01:52, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry! I admittedly have no clue on case merges, so I suppose I don't really know how quick that all is. I just went through some of the old checked cases, but not all, and some older open ones. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:55, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

No problem! Merges are usually pretty straightforward, this one was only a bit complicated because there was also manual archiving to do, and the case itself was inherently complicated. Plus I was just kind of grumpy last night, for no good reason. The other case just kind of annoyed me, I prodded it two months ago to try to move it along, Alison left a comment that didn't really help, and then nobody else responded until you added more notes. I've seen since then that DQ's on a break due to health issues. I guess I'm getting a bit burnt out by SPI, but I'm not going anywhere. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Extension of IPv6 block

Hi, last week you blocked the IPv6 address beginning with 2603:300B:E01:BF00 for repeated disruptive editing of Talk:February 29. The block has now expired and the IPv6 user is back making the same disruptive editing to the same page. Could you please put another, longer, ban in place? Thanks. --Marbe166 (talk) 18:57, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done, for a month this time. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:03, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for keeping your promise.

I think what you did will serve the purpose. Readers will now know which Gaurav Sharma is which. Thanks so much --Bond111 (talk) 15:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Outing/not outing

If I have this right, a registered editor is editing while logged out? So posting a request for him to log in, on the talk page of the IP account, using some identifying info about either his registerred account or him personally is 'ok'...? - ^theWOLFchild 16:53, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah it's fine, it's an editor who we've been trying to get to answer questions on their talk page about writing several articles and adding info without ever having added a citation to a reliable source. Instead of responding they logged out and edited as the IP, and they've done it enough times that now they're blocked. It's very obvious that the IP and the account are the same person, if you look at the history of any of the articles the IP has edited you'll see what I mean. If someone had gone and discovered the editor's IP somehow and then posted it here, that would be outing. This editor effectively disclosed their IP on their own, and WP:OUTING doesn't forbid stating the obvious. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:59, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok then, thanks for the info. - ^theWOLFchild 20:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2017).

Administrator changes

Joe Roe

JzG

Ericorbit • Perceval • Thingg • Tristanb • Violetriga

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, a new section has been added to the username policy which disallows usernames containing emoji, emoticons or otherwise "decorative" usernames, and usernames that use any non-language symbols. Administrators should discuss issues related to these types of usernames before blocking.

Technical news

• Wikimedians are now invited to vote on the proposals in the 2017 Community Wishlist Survey on Meta Wiki until 10 December 2017. In particular, there is a section of the survey regarding new tools for administrators and for anti-harassment.
• A new function is available to edit filter managers which can be used to store matches from regular expressions.

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is open until Sunday 23:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC). There are 12 candidates running for 8 vacant seats.

Miscellaneous

• Over the last few months, several users have reported backlogs that require administrator attention at WP:ANI, with the most common backlogs showing up on WP:SPI, WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. It is requested that all administrators take some time during this month to help clear backlogs wherever possible. It should be noted that AIV reports are not always valid; however, they still need to be cleared, which may include needing to remind users on what qualifies as vandalism.
• The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative is conducting a survey for English Wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works (i.e. which problems it deals with well and which problems it struggles with). If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be emailed to you via Special:EmailUser.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:58, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Editions about Gulf

Hello, I recently updated some editions about Gulf company and some other editions, but some accounts was blocked by a sock puppets of consumersdistributingonline. I don't have any links with this account and I just want to edit with my best of possible, when we see edits of that account, we can see clearly that's them who want to relaunch the company that has this account. I often tried to keep an account for a long period but it was eventually blocked. If I edit on Consumers Distributing it's not to promote personally this. I know that someone try to relaunch the company and I tried to edit the best information possible. Also, I can tell you that I ever speak with him personally at phone and it's really hard to know something of concrete from him about the relaunch. I would want that this relaunch of the company works, I don't know what's happening now but I try to stay informed by consulting the website and others research on the web. I discovered the investigation page of consumersdistributingonline and when we see that, it really has no sense. When I have another account, it's because I forgot my password and it's in the suggestions of Wikipedia to open another account. I want soon doing some other changes on Gulf, and it's very good edits.

Also, please don't revert my edits because it's really not vandalism that I do. I improve articles and correct errors. If I edit in the future, I would like to don't be blocked. Thank you. (I just discovered from now how we can write a message to administrators and I will try to contact you other times, and you can block the account Santa Claude, I ever forgot the password for that account and I opened that by error and will not be useful) Bennyco (talk) 18:37, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

@Bennyco: read WP:BLOCKEVASION, then read WP:STANDARDOFFER. You might also want to read WP:BROTHER. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:37, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Ivanvector. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Caroline Hutchings page now redirected to Caroline Danjuma

I have a small issue with a page that I modified titled "Caroline Danjuma" it has incorrect information according to the person to which the article is about. However I edited it but it was reverted by a [Darreg]. I reached out to him so he understands that his article (created without the permission of Caroline) is incorrect but he insists that it should not be edited. Please advice — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geebee2703 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

@Geebee2703: I moved the page back to Caroline Danjuma because I don't see any sources anywhere that say her name is Hutchings, and I've protected it so that it cannot be moved again. If you have a reliable source indicating that she goes by Caroline Hutchings then we can talk about what to do about it, but from the info available to me I can't even be sure that the person you're talking to is the same person as the article is about, and we're required to be careful when writing articles about living people. If Caroline would like to resolve her issue privately, she can see the instructions at WP:OTRS for how to email someone who can confirm her identity and evaluate whatever information she has that is incorrect in the article. Thanks.

@Darreg: FYI. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: I would reach out to her to send the appropriate info as you have suggested thanks & yes it is the same person we are talking about. I checked the WP:OTRS page & i'm clueless as to how to get any email i can forward to her so she can reach out herself, please advice — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geebee2703 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

@Geebee2703: the OTRS page is a bit confusing and not very straightforward, but I think you want info-en-q@wikimedia.org. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 01:20, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Related: Caroline Hutchings (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal) — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:27, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: ok so you suggest I forward all my questions to the stated address? I spoke with her "Caroline" & she said she contacted a @Dennis Brown: but all I want (on her behalf) is know how to go about editing her page without breaking any regulations - please advice

@Geebee2703: yes, Caroline dropped a note here asking him for help, but a couple other users (myself included) came across it first. Yes, I do think that if you are in contact with Caroline that you should ask her to contact that email address, they can assist her better than I can from here. There is also a discussion at Talk:Caroline Danjuma that both of you may be interested in. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Reverted edit

May I ask why you reverted my edit? nagualdesign 15:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Was posting on your talk page as you wrote this. I won't repeat myself, you can see what I wrote there. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Why not just hit the rollback link in your own contributions page? I was surprised to see this edit just now, but when I saw that this edit followed it, I could understand the situation perfectly well. Nyttend (talk) 02:45, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Oops, sorry; I misremembered the thing at WP:AN. Somehow I thought you'd used rollback on an edit that you didn't mean to touch, not that you used rollback when meaning to revert with explanation. Nyttend (talk) 02:47, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

List of historical and fictional birds listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of historical and fictional birds. Since you had some involvement with the List of historical and fictional birds redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:10, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Please count me out

I just happened to see your edit at ANI, in which you supplied diffs, some of which involved me, and also made the comment There comes a point where two (or three) editors who just can't get along should be prevented from doing so, for everyone else's sake. I understand the part about the diffs, since they also involved Icewhiz and the OP of the recent ANI report. But the allusion to three editors was unwarranted. I had nothing to do with that report, and I have not interacted with that person for quite a while. This is no coincidence. So I would greatly appreciate if you just counted me out of the non-existing "three editors". Thanks. Dr. K. 17:40, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

@Dr.K.: I appreciate your efforts to distance yourself from the previously ongoing conflict, and if the thread at ANI were still open I would be happy to note this publicly. My apologies for dragging you back into it through my links. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Ivanvector. I was not really looking for an apology, although your professionalism and civility are noted. The links were not the issue. As I commented above, I understand that you had to use the links to clarify the points you were making. The only problem that I saw was the parenthetical reference to "three editors", while the ANI report was about two editors. Given the links, the third editor, although parenthetical, was in my mind, obvious enough. In any case, given our communication, I consider this point resolved. Best regards. Dr. K. 22:54, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Yemeni Civil War (2015)

The only thing to do here is to discuss the content on the article's talk page. I'm not about to block someone for having an opinion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi the problem is the contributor refuses to go in talk page and continues to inpose his point of view. What is the solution ? --Panam2014 (talk) 17:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Could you add the same warning for Chilicheese22 ? --Panam2014 (talk) 22:18, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

@Panam2014: Chilicheese22 already has a logged notice in the past year ([2]), we're not allowed to post notices more often than that. Thanks for following up, though. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. We should also saying that nothing of us have broken the 1RR. But Chilicheese22 is a recent contributor and has had a lot of problems with a lot of contributors. He does not accept the opinions of others on this point and he only seeks to impose his opinion. Now, since all his revocations are supported only by himself and no one supports him on the page of discussion, there would be no way to temporarily prohibit any deletion of the disputed mention (STC)? Also, I have an interesting piece. Instead of arguing, Chilicheese decided to repeat his actions, after the end of the protection, falsely claiming that there was no response in talk page, which is wrong. And he have insulted me as a "socketpuppet" and a "child", etc. What is the solution ? --Panam2014 (talk) 22:26, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

You don't need to keep reposting things here, you've already said exactly the same thing at ANI. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok, but I want to know what to do if he continues to stubborn and continue to impose his changes? He will surely do it tonight.--Panam2014 (talk) 22:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I ask for a sanction against CC. He have removed STC without consensus !! Enough is enough. He have broken the deal and the consensus. --Panam2014 (talk) 00:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

What is the solution now ? --Panam2014 (talk) 10:47, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

We have not broken 1RR

Hi We (me and CC) have broken any rule. We did not violate the "1RR" since it happened on WM Commmons and not on en.wiki. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Your reverts there affect content which is visible on this wiki and several others, and so you have not only broken 1RR there but also here, and on 8 other Wikimedia projects as well. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

The file is hosted on Commons, not in en.wiki (some files are hosted here). And I have not seen a rule that says that, especially since there is a consensus on other Wikipedia to display the STC. So the CC22 edition is against the consensus of the other WPs. And an administrator confirmed it to me. And CC22 have uploaded 2 files and in en.wiki, he have replaced the svg by the jpg file. So, in en.wiki, I have not reverted his action. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:59, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Povrachka

Hi Ivanvector, after you reverted a blocked sock of VJ-Yugo, this new account emerged and reverted you with usual reasoning of Vj-Yugo that is "unreliable source" thing. The account is new and I do not know if I should open a SPI after two edits. Would you mind keeping an eye on them? Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

This article should be OK now Har Gobind Khorana

I first read this article today and realized that much of some paragraphs had been copied from a book. I deleted all of that over the past three hours and replaced it with factual content, now fully cited with sources such as MIT and obituaries published by major news media.

I will check it again, but I believe the article is now fine, or close to that. (This is particularly important today, since many people are likely to read the article.

  This is why: Har Gobind Khorana deciphered DNA and wrote the dictionary for our genetic language. Tuesday’s Google Doodle honors the pioneering biochemist and Nobel Laureate. https://www.vox.com/2018/1/9/16862980/google-doodle-har-gobind-khorana-genetics-dna

I don't know if Har Gobind Khorana needs to be semi protected.

There did seem to be some debate about Pakistan vs. India but I did not read those discussions on the Talk page. Peter K Burian (talk) 18:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@Peter K Burian: thanks, I think the article is semiprotected because of vandalism that might not have been related to the Google Doodle (it happened yesterday) but I'll ping GeneralizationsAreBad who set the protection. As for the plagiarized content, thank you very much for detecting the copyright violation and removing it. These edits also need to be revdeleted, which I'll take care of after I figure out how far back the content has been in the article, it might take me a while. In future you should report copyright violations like this; you can find instructions and advice at WP:DCV. Thanks again. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip on WP:DCV. I had no idea how to report it. In any event, I believe the sections with violations are now all gone. I deleted many of them!

Perhaps the semi-protection should continue. Cheers! Peter K Burian (talk) 19:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Coffee's talk page

Ivanvector Did you approve Coffee's keeping this list on her talk page? [3] The title for the section says "Evidence of editor behavior against community standards - this holding area has been permitted by an uninvolved administrator" - I understood your comment to mean that a subpage was ok, but that an editor "should generally not maintain in public view" such a list.Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:37, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

It's fine. Quit nitpicking. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 01:09, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

The fact that it is now in a different format from an edit notice does not seem to have remedied the concerns that many editors voiced last night. If an individual feels they are being harassed by 13 people (and counting), including several administrators, who share similar concerns, I think representing it as collection "Evidence of editor behavior against community standards" is a tough sell. Sometimes an editor may not agree with that community standard, but then the only choices they have is to accept it or to leave the community. No one can force you to agree with it, but that does not change what it is, imo. I don't think it is nitpicking to ask you what you meant by your close, btw. I don't really plan to pursue it, as it is not bothering me that much, but I would undestand if other editors feel differently.Seraphim System ^(talk) 01:45, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

then the only choices they have is to accept it or to leave the community - I can tell you that I feel differently about that statement, or at least how it has been used in context here. Think about what you are actually saying there, please. MPS1992 (talk) 21:05, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Coffee has hidden the text as of hours ago now and there has been plenty of wikibloodshed over this already. Not everything needs to be a god damn fucking battle, please just let it go. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:08, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

There is a third option I guess, which is continuing to be disruptive, socking, returning as a long term vandal, etc. but it is not something I am inclined towards so I didn't think of it. I think setting up an alternate wiki or something is more positive. MPS1992, this comment was not intended as something personal - but not everyone wants side discussions on their talk pages - please post on my talk page in the future if you have concerns about something I have said (this would also probably be preferable to blanking comments at AE) [4] Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:58, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

AnnaKomnene

Hi, after you reverted Provrachka, AnnaKomnene emerged. The same situation, I am not sure if I should SPI an account with one edit. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Nah, "path of least resistance" is fine for these persistent socks, we don't need to waste energy on them. Blocked and page protected. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Ivanvector, your contribution to fighting these dishonest editors is invaluable. It is sad to see how some people only remove content, Wikipedia over everything else needs addition of new content and improvement of the actual one. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thirsty work. Cheers! >SerialNumber54129...speculates 16:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

MfD

• Not being critical, but if you're not closing the discussion as also a consensus to delete the /NOBAN violations page, then... might want to add a note as to why. GMG^talk 15:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Not to gloat or anything but just wanted to say thanks for deleting it as well as for closing that discussion, All became a timesink in the end so glad someone ended it all!, Happy editing, –Davey2010^Talk 15:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for the notes, but I think it's best if nobody edits that page any more. For what it's worth in case anyone does come asking, the third page was only added 47 minutes before I elected to close the discussion early, so in my view there hadn't been enough discussion about it to form consensus. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:13, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah... I'm aware, but I'm also aware that it provides a very tempting avenue for someone to immediately restart the discussion on another MfD page. GMG^talk 15:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, good point. Let me think about it for a few minutes. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:17, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Um, why did you delete the subpage that had nothing to do with the first page? It is a list of evidence, which I'm permitted to maintain. I had been slowly populating it, and then hit save to find out it lost all the data because of the deletion. Please explain very soon. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 15:52, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

After the discussion here, I thought it best to delete that page as well to avoid the drama-fest of another MfD. I'm sorry you lost your work and you're right that you're permitted to maintain lists of evidence, and if you want to restore the page or create a new one with the same content you have my consent as the deleting admin. Depending on your browser you may be able to rescue your edits by navigating back to an older preview and copying the code to a new editor window. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• If anything else is required of me from these discussions, I am going to be entirely unavailable until after 3PM Atlantic Standard Time (19:00 UTC) and possibly later depending on weather. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Doug Ford Jr.

FYI... I have requested semi-protection for this page. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 14:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I was not going to do that myself. I am about to post about this either at BLPN or in the form of an RFC. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:17, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Question

Hey Ivanvector! Hope you're well. I had question for you regarding my draft submission of Datari Turner at AfC. Is it possible to remove the big red box that says 'submission declined' since it was done by mistake? All good if not, was just curious about it. Thanks. JacobPace (talk) 16:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi JacobPace, I apologize for being slow to respond but things have been bat-shit crazy around here for a few days (on and off Wikipedia). As DGG said on the draft's talk page, the notice remains as that was the result of the submission at that time, but if you have addressed that concern then you can re-submit the article. At least, that's how I understand AFC works, I don't spend much time there. However, I see also that there is a concern that the draft you've created is substantially similar to the version that was deleted by consensus but has been repeatedly recreated over a long period of time, so if you are planning to resubmit the draft you will have to address that concern as well. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:40, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

At the time it was submitted, I don't think it was declared properly, so I prefer not to remove the notice. The article has now been re-submitted, and someone other than I will evaluate it. DGG ( talk ) 21:51, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2018).

Administrator changes

None

Blurpeace • Dana boomer • Deltabeignet • Denelson83 • Grandiose • Salvidrim! • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC has closed with a consensus that candidates at WP:RFA must disclose whether they have ever edited for pay and that administrators may never use administrative tools as part of any paid editing activity, except when they are acting as a Wikipedian-in-Residence or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF.
• Editors responding to threats of harm can now contact the Wikimedia Foundation's emergency address by using Special:EmailUser/Emergency. If you don't have email enabled on Wikipedia, directly contacting the emergency address using your own email client remains an option.

Technical news

• A tag will now be automatically applied to edits that blank a page, turn a page into a redirect, remove/replace almost all content in a page, undo an edit, or rollback an edit. These edits were previously denoted solely by automatic edit summaries.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee has enacted a change to the discretionary sanctions procedure which requires administrators to add a standardized editnotice when placing page restrictions. Editors cannot be sanctioned for violations of page restrictions if this editnotice was not in place at the time of the violation.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Coachella Valley Church

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Coachella Valley Church. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Canadian National Parks

Hi Ivan, I've left a few messages for you on my talk page. I probably messed up the ping, as usual. nagualdesign 21:54, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

No, like always we just talked past each other :) I've replied on your page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:04, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Additional evidence

I have posted additional evidence on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xinjao. Kindly check. Lorstaking (talk) 02:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Given the close physical location and these are only two accounts to allege Lorstaking of misconduct by providing same reason, it seems they are same person. Xinjao is indeffed and he failed to convince opposers to change their vote on ANI and hours later this other account supported Xinjao by making a toxic comment which reads like nothing but frustration of Xinjao. The link between two accounts is strong enough to justify sock block. Capitals00 (talk) 04:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Need your advice

Will you take a look at the user page of NeilEvans and notice the percentage of articles he's created that became redirects? I counted 35 listed + 7 that became articles. I came across this user during my NPP rounds and found another that's up at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Enforcer_(Hercules:_The_Legendary_Journeys) His TP and Archive aren't too encouraging, either. Any suggestions? ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) Probably very little, in the knowledge that NeilEvans hasn't edited for nearly three years  :) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 18:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Is NPP so backlogged that page creations from 2010 are just getting through now? Looks like nothing, just a user who created a lot of articles on a niche topic of interest to them that turned out to not really be article-worthy. As for why most of their creations are now redirects, have a look at Talk:List of She-Ra: Princess of Power characters. All the bot notifications about fair use seem innocent: if they uploaded images to their articles under fair use and then the articles were merged into a central list, the images would be orphaned and thus no longer fair use. Maybe someone could have imported the images into the list, but the bot doesn't do that. Doesn't look like anything to worry about here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:06, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks - yes, we are a bit backlogged, but I typically start with the oldest first so it's not as bad as it seems. You could say I ride drag. 🤓 ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:26, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Premature close

The guy starts editing like a pro on Nov 22 with detailed edit summaries and wikilingo [5]He moves into warning other users within a few daya and the assessing article class soon after that. He's a blocked or banned user under a new name and he's being pretty disruptive with his trolling. Legacypac (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Honestly I doubt it. If they were an experienced user they wouldn't be getting so many wikijargon things so completely wrong. Anyway their ramble at ANI got the attention of about 7 admins by my count, so it's probably safe to let this one go. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:01, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Ivanvector. Editor has been warned so hopefully they'll take the things they've been told to heart. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:27, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Rakia

hi Also i added this article [6] in Arabic Wikipedia, simply i added some external links about Rakia, as heritage AS NATIONAL DRINK, as i discovered in "THE CULTURAL TOURIST'S EXPERIENCE"; so please take it easy, and re_add my external link, it doesn't have any relation with advertising or promotion as you said, i'am free man, independent, i'm cosmopolitan..i write what i like, that's it, so please im suffering with incitement and exclusion in Arabic Wikipedia, so take it easy please.. i'm just modest blogger, in Wikimedia i contribute mainly in Arabic Wikipedia... re-add it please. thanks --محمد بوعلام عصامي *«Simo.Boualam» (talk) 00:53, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

IP user 216.221.38.221

Can you please revoke talk page access of this 216.221.38.221 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)? Has been going on making vile personal attacks in the talk page after it was blocked. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 11:07, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

No problem now, Widr already blocked the IP. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 11:51, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Saw that while I was checking in on your first message. Thanks Widr! Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:29, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2018).

Administrator changes

Lourdes†

AngelOfSadness • Bhadani • Chris 73 • Coren • Friday • Midom • Mike V

† Lourdes has requested that her admin rights be temporarily removed, pending her return from travel.

Guideline and policy news

• The autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) is scheduled to end on 14 March 2018. The results of the research collected can be read on Meta Wiki.
• Community ban discussions must now stay open for at least 24 hours prior to being closed.
• A change to the administrator inactivity policy has been proposed. Under the proposal, if an administrator has not used their admin tools for a period of five years and is subsequently desysopped for inactivity, the administrator would have to file a new RfA in order to regain the tools.
• A change to the banning policy has been proposed which would specify conditions under which a repeat sockmaster may be considered de facto banned, reducing the need to start a community ban discussion for these users.

Technical news

• CheckUsers are now able to view private data such as IP addresses from the edit filter log, e.g. when the filter prevents a user from creating an account. Previously, this information was unavailable to CheckUsers because access to it could not be logged.
• The edit filter has a new feature contains_all that edit filter managers may use to check if one or more strings are all contained in another given string.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2018 Steward elections, the following users are our new stewards: -revi, Green Giant, Rxy, There'sNoTime, علاء.

Obituaries

• Bhadani (Gangadhar Bhadani) passed away on 8 February 2018. Bhadani joined Wikipedia in March 2005 and became an administrator in September 2005. While he was active, Bhadani was regarded as one of the most prolific Wikipedians from India.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

I am grateful for your kind vote of support at my WP:AN#Topic ban appeal. It is much appreciated alongside the mention of WP:LASTCHANCE. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 01:54, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Needed help regarding article creation block

Hello sir, This is Mehekshaikh. I am manager of Indian actor Rohit KaduDeshmukh. There were many mis creations of the article about which one of his fan informed us on our email. Hence I came up to look into the matter that whether anyone is creating wrong article about Rohit sir with defamatory content. But just now I found of that there is an article creation block on the article Rohit KaduDeshmukh. So you being a reputed administrator on Wikipedia I came to your talk page to seek help. We will be very thankful and glad if you help us removing the recreation block from the article. So that we can create a proper draft of the article and then apply for submission. Awaiting your response in affirmation. Thank you! Mehekshaikh (talk) 07:36, 3 March 2018 (UTC)Mehekshaikh Mehekshaikh (talk) 07:36, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, this message was pasted on talkpage of three more users (excluding me), I have replied to it on my talkpage. Regards, —usernamekiran(talk) 08:20, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

As Arnold said..."I'm back."

Looks like Teambk has recreated 2018_Singapore_Community_Shield that was deleted because we already have Singapore Community Shield. ^{Atsme📞📧} 10:58, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Full protection on The Tempest

Hi Ivanvector, and thanks for adding protection on The Tempest.

But since you set it to fully protected rather than extended confirmed, and in light of your comment on the request at RFPP, do I then take it that you view the situation as a garden variety content dispute? By my best judgement it falls squarely under vandalism: it's IPs and what looks like throwaway accounts edit-warring to remove long-stable cited content, with no attempt to communicate (nothing on the Talk page despite requests, and those edit summaries are just trolling and obfuscation, not attempts to discuss via ES). And as an added bonus I smell socking by an at least somewhat more experienced editor, and an element of trolling just as a cherry on top (nothing concrete enough to be actionable, mind). In any case, a couple of days at full protection will do little harm (it's not exactly the most frequently edited article, sadly), but I feel I need to check to calibrate my radar. `cause if it falls into the "content dispute" bucket I need to start minding my number of Rs! --Xover (talk) 17:07, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@Xover: yes, it does read as a POV dispute to me, with several users reverting on both sides and no talk page discussion at all, and in those cases I feel it's better to enforce discussion than just block everyone who's crossed the bright line. At the very least, having a discussion establishes that there is consensus to include the section (or not, if that's the case). Indeed, why include a section on feminist criticism specifically? The prose suggests that the play has attracted "much feminist criticism" yet only refers to two sources. I'm not intending to take sides in this and I'm probably going to stay out of it completely, but maybe that's something to start a discussion around, or a point which could be improved. At any rate the reverts were not vandalism, but see WP:RGW. Feel free to ping me if you need me. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:19, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Uhm. You do realise that section has been in the article at least since its GA review in 2010 (probably longer, but I couldn't be bothered to go digging for it just now)? If 8+ years in the article is not sufficient to establish implied consensus, then we need to speedy WP:SILENT. And when there is a group of obviously coordinated edits from IPs and two extremely low edit count accounts deleting an entire section—and especially one with "Feminist" in the heading, given recent years' events—who make no attempt to actually communicate, despite being referred to the talk page and warning templates placed on their user talk page… I'm having a really hard time reconciling that with anything other than "vandalism" in my head. But apparently I need to calibrate my detectors then. Will you be keeping the article on your watchlist? I'm a little uncomfortable trying to keep handling that situation once protection expires when my radar is out of whack.

PS. I'm assuming your directly content related questions and comments were rhetorical ones to illustrate your meaning, so I won't address them here (short version: yes the section needs improvement, expansion, and more refs). If you're actually interested in discussing it do please give me a ping (and on the article's talk page would be an excellent venue for that). I'll beg, cajole, and entice if it means getting more eyeballs and engaged editors involved in the articles in WikiProject Shakespeare's scope! WP:ARBSAQ scared away or burned out most of them, so actually getting any discussion anywhere there is nigh (neigh? nigh.) on impossible lately. You wouldn't happen to be have a interest in Early Modern English literature would you? I'm sure I can find some way to tie it to accountancy! :) --Xover (talk) 18:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, that didn't take long. They even beat MusikBot's removal of the protection template. --Xover (talk) 10:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring

Hi Ivanvector, You recently blocked a sock of UrbanNerd. One of the articles that this user was disrupting was List of American and Canadian cities by number of major professional sports franchises. However, since UrbanNerd was indeffed, another user has arrived and continued UrbanNerd's edit war, claiming a consensus for the change based on UrbanNerd's past edit warring. Obviously the prior disruption of a banned user should have no impact on the establishment of consensus, and even if it did, two users edit warring the same change does not a consensus make. However, the editor doesn't seem to understand how consensus is established, and has a long history of being blocked for edit warring. (See discussion here.) Perhaps you could restore the long term stable version (see [7]), as it exist for four years prior to UrbanNerd's disruption, and protect, to force the user to discuss rather than edit war? TDL (talk) 01:16, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Reverted Edit to Rob Ford

I saw that you reverted my edit here citing peacock, although none of the copyediting I did highlighted or promoted the subject. I think you may have interpreted my edit surrounding the funeral event and media coverage thereof as vandalism? Just looking for an explanation before I undo your revert. Outback the koala (talk) 14:20, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Responded at Talk:Rob Ford. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:39, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

VJ-Yugo

Hi Ivanvector, the newest sock is in action [8]. This guy is so much persistent. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Ivanvector. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Even if he was paid for it he would not be more dedicated to socking [9]. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:27, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

[10], [11] Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:08, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of Anzulovic and POV related to Kosovo [12]. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:07, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Wow, persistent little bugger. Thanks for keeping up with this. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:42, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

He is around again [13] vs [14]; [15] vs [16]. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:00, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Apart from sock I noticed yesterday, there is another sock of him around [17]. Anzulovic source again. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:17, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

IP 199.7.157.114

The reason why I am bring up IP user 199.7.157.114 is because it feels this is the same user as IP user 199.119.224.0/20, who was suspended for three. I raise concern because when the name Hamish Marshall comes up, he gives very vague and nonsensical reasons to removing the changes I made and deletes a lot of information that is not related with the subject. Thanks 2620:22:4000:110:1FFE:99CB:B8C4:F88A (talk) 16:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Guess who

[18] Is deleting stuff together with some other changes he tried to make four days ago. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:34, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Blocked. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

"aspersions"

"casting aspersions about other editors' motivations and running to admin noticeboards whenever someone doesn't agree with their opinion".

There are plenty of people I disagree with at the Doug Ford article, but only one I've had issues with—Nocturnalnow even pointed that out in the ANI discussion. This comment is especially puzzling in light of the aspersions—which you know are false (I'm pushing what POV again?)—that NN has launched at me. You disagree with my position (which I hold in good faith), but I hope you could at least strike this comment. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:51, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

requesting permission to create Cora Emmanuel

Hi Ivanvector, as I searched for the model Cora Emmanuel's name on here (as I thought it's high time she had an article by now) I saw that it was deleted because there is some type of block that indefinitely prevents anyone besides admins from creating the page because of some other user's actions (never seen that before, really weird). Anyways, I came by here to ask if you could remove the block so that I could create the page myself. Looking at it for what it is, the notability aspect is definitely there for the article to be made. Thanks. Trillfendi (talk) 19:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Trillfendi, thanks for your note and sorry for taking a few days to respond. Given the history of the article I think it would be best if you create the article in draft: space first, or in your sandbox if the title blacklist is preventing you. Once you've done that let me know, and I'll be happy to move it over the protected page if your article doesn't repeat some issues in the previous version. I'll have to check with one or two other admins regarding the previous deletion and the entry in the blacklist, but I think it will be a pretty routine matter. Thanks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:22, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Will do, thanks for the tip. :) Trillfendi (talk) 16:52, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Shingling334

Hello. FYI Shingling's geolocation is no secret, he has even mentioned it himself, and the IP in the case leads to a provider that Shingling has used before, and a geolocation (which in the UK is the nearest NOC, usually within 20-25 miles or so of the actual location) that is only just over 15 miles southwest of their actual geolocation, so there's no doubt at all about it being him. It's not his usual IP-range, though, since his usual range has been rangeblocked... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Understood, and thanks. The IP hadn't edited in 5 days by the time I got to the report, though. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:25, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Category:Descendants_of_John_Ames_(born_1647)

Dear Ivan, IMHO, the discussion about Category:Descendants_of_John_Ames_(born_1647) should have been relisted in an attempt to obtain better feedback and consensus. Can you please enlighten me as to why a relisting was not in order? Please ping me when you respond. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:48, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jax 0677: I prefer to close discussions when they show up at ANRFC, which I interpret as a request for an admin to step in and end the discussion, not just kick the can down the road by relisting. The last few comments in this discussion were separated by five days, two full weeks, and another two full weeks plus a day; it seemed to me to have run its course with the only consensus emerging being against your original proposal. If I were to relist, my relisting comment would be "Consensus is clearly against merging these categories, but should the nominated category be deleted?" Should I do that, or just leave it? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:31, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

• Reply - I think that given the number of delete votes, that a discussion about whether or not to delete the category should take place, as the discussion has NEVER been relisted. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:38, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jax 0677: fair enough. I'll take care of it in a few minutes, I'm about to run to a meeting. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:40, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Am I too late?

I just added Orchitaakter to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Abdullah Zubayer then noticed you'd called it as closed, though not yet done all the closing magic. I can submit a new report if it's too late. Thanks, Cabayi (talk) 15:54, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

@Cabayi: thanks for this, I'm going to consult with the CheckUsers on how best to handle the other account. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:47, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Wow, what a kettle of fish that turned out to be. Thanks for chasing it down. Cabayi (talk) 19:29, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Sock?

Hi Ivanvector. Not sure I'm aware of the whole story with this one, but they seemed to be targeting/stalking past edits of yours. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:03, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@Paul Erik: heh, neat. That's VJ-Yugo. Targeting my edits is new, I guess I'll have to keep an eye on that. Thanks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:22, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Or maybe it's Hillbillyholiday. Doesn't matter, they're spinning their wheels with their petty reversion campaign. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:24, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

CU-tag User:Cypriotgenious

Re your question: the tag was added by DoRD, so I'd say the CU-check was made by them (to confirm "behavioural evidence"...). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:18, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't arguing that a check wasn't done, but I guess I could pay better attention to who added the tag. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Does this close seem proper to you

I was surprised to see this close which seems to say that a community ban discussion is the wrong question and that evasion is a ban(?). This admin has made similar premature closes in my experience. What do you think?- MrX 🖋 15:18, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@MrX: I think I've put enough energy into it, to be honest. That discussion didn't go at all the way I thought it would and I'm honestly happy someone put a lid on it before someone said something really stupid about what when it's totally okaysies to ignore all the rules, or to pick and choose which ones to follow and which ones are best to wipe your ass with. Best to just leave it be, in my opinion. (Courtesy ping JzG) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:24, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

OK.- MrX 🖋 15:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@MrX: but, also, Guy might have been referring to WP:THREESTRIKES, or perhaps the provision in the banning policy which states that [e]ditors who are or remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community". HBH has a very good case to appeal their restrictions as many editors view their edits as valuable, but if they choose not to do that and continue evading their block instead, our policies support reverting their edits and blocking their IPs, and I intend to continue doing so. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:41, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

It's quite simple. If the user is the serial block-evader then they may be considered banned by default. If they dispute it then they need to appeal the original block. We block people, not accounts. A "Vote For Banning" makes it harder for an innocent party to get unblocked and provides exactly no change over the status quo if they genuinely are guilty of serial block evasion. Guy (Help!) 17:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

"Innocent party" are you really going to call what he's done innocent? --Tarage (talk) 19:54, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

This is probably enough, you guys, actually. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:22, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Please note the strategic use of the word "if". Guy (Help!) 12:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Portals

The Portals WikiProject has been rebooted.

You are invited to join, and participate in the effort to revitalize and improve the Portal system and all the portals in it.

There are sections on the WikiProject page dedicated to tasks (including WikiGnome tasks too), and areas on the talk page for discussing the improvement and automation of the various features of portals.

Many complaints have been lodged in the RfC to delete all portals, pointing out their various problems. They say that many portals are not maintained, or have fallen out of date, are useless, etc. Many of the !votes indicate that the editors who posted them simply don't believe in the potential of portals anymore.

It's time to change all that. Let's give them reasons to believe in portals, by revitalizing them.

The best response to a deletion nomination is to fix the page that was nominated. The further underway the effort is to improve portals by the time the RfC has run its course, the more of the reasons against portals will no longer apply. RfCs typically run 30 days. There are 19 days left in this one. Let's see how many portals we can update and improve before the RfC is closed, and beyond.

A healthy WikiProject dedicated to supporting and maintaining portals may be the strongest argument of all not to delete.

We may even surprise ourselves and exceed all expectations. Who knows what we will be able to accomplish in what may become the biggest Wikicollaboration in years.

Let's do this.

See ya at the WikiProject!

Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   10:21, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Earth in Canada 2018

Hi Ivan! I see that you've removed the upload links to Commons on the List of national parks in Canada. Is there a specific reason for this? It would be really helpful for documentation and illustration purposes to have these links the whole year round, not only during the contest period. :-) Best, Braveheart (talk) 10:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Braveheart, thanks for your note. The links you added were specifically identified as an unencyclopedic element which disqualified the list from featured status. As part of an expansive effort to update and improve the list to restore it to a featured list, the links were removed. I thought I pinned you at the time, but if not I apologize. As I recall the links were not coded correctly anyway: clicking on one did not bring the user to an upload process for the individual parks but for the list itself. I do support linking to the Commons project and encouraging media uploads, but there ought to be a way to do so which doesn't interfere with English Wikipedia content processes. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:22, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

If you're interested, the featured list review is here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:27, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

No problem! When I check an old version with links, this link uploads pictures and automatically adds the identifier for the park to every picture.

As for the content processes - why shouldn't there be links to a commons category for every park and the ability to contribute not only text but also multimedia content to the individual parks? There are ways of making the upload button and Commons link less obvious (or irritating), if that's better suited for this list. Braveheart (talk) 11:31, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

P.S.: Thanks for the link to the review, I'm not sure how one comment without a reference to a guideline makes upload links unencyclopaedic. In case the guidelines for featured lists don't allow for links to other projects, why bother with the feature list review in the first place? Braveheart (talk) 11:38, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@Braveheart: well, admittedly, removing the links in the first place was kind of a knee-jerk reaction to the original delisting comment, but throughout the course of the review we did have to decide on what information to include in the improved table and what to cut, due to limited real estate, so it's likely the links would have eventually been removed in favour of some other information anyway. But as far as encouraging users to upload multimedia content, I support the project and have plans on contributing myself when the weather is better in my province, but there should be a way to do this without taking up space that would be better used for content. Would a banner work, if it was placed at the top of the article or directly above the table? There are many pages that use a {{commons}} or {{commons category}} template to place a small link under the article's external links section, including the National Parks list actually, but I think that's not what you're going for. Would you mind if I raised this issue at one of the village pumps? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:49, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Not at all :-) And as mentioned, there are options to add smaller icons for the commons categories and upload links that would not look as ugly - admittedly I didn't have that much time last year to make a decent-looking alternative.

And thanks for being interested in WLE - you're always welcome to join the group of organisers if you're interested in improving some of the other lists for the provincial parks :-) Braveheart (talk) 19:16, 24 April 2018 (UTC)