User talk:Ivanvector/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 18

Ha

Closed in between me clicking 'edit' and actually finishing it. Next time I should make the cup of tea after. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I figured. I put a note on your talk page already about it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Violation of WP:PROMOTION and WP:UN

Cambridge_School_Srinivaspuri violates WP:PROMOTION. It is written like an advertisement.

Several changes were made by User:Csnp (probably stands for Cambridge Srinivaspuri) which violates WP:UN.

I am sorry if I am not following Wikipedia guidelines. Is there any way I can help to improve the article?

duttaditya18 (talk) 20:55, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Duttaditya18, thanks for your report. The speedy deletion criterion WP:G11 is for articles that are unambiguously promotional, which means that they don't serve any purpose other than to promote something, and can't possibly be rewritten into a proper encyclopedia article. This article is pretty bad but there's a bit there that might be useful, so I didn't think it quite met the criterion. For example I think the lead section is probably mostly okay although "noted educationist" should be removed and the "banner image" can be taken away. The history section is good information I think, although it needs sources. You could probably just remove the entire rest of the article to be honest, there are elements there that could be kept (info about school libraries is usually kept but this article's section is pretty badly written) but if someone is really interested they can look that up in the page history. For any sections you remove that might be useful later, consider replacing the contents with {{spam blanked}}. Go ahead and try it, I have to go do some other work and will be away for a bit but I'll check back and give you a hand, maybe in a few hours or maybe tomorrow. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I have reverted the page to the Jan 27, 2018 version to deal with cut-n-paste content from the school's website added by Csnp, Deepanshi.82 and possibly others. I haven't checked yet but the added images are likely to be copyvio too. Ivavector, do you know off-hand if all/some of the intermediate versions need to be revdelled?

Duttaditya18 can you take a look the version I reverted to and see if it is ok? Abecedare (talk) 21:27, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Abecedare Yeah! It is perfectly fine. I will add the more details about the school in the article and add more citations. I am working on it. I will finish it by tomorrow. duttaditya18 (talk) 21:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@Abecedare: oof, I didn't check for copyvios. I've recently had my assumptions challenged as to what constitutes a revdeletable copyvio, and I'm not familiar with the history of this article, so I guess use your best judgement? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:00, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I saw your note on AN

I saw your note, however, the image in question wasn't safe for work. I actually tried to cover it with collapse top and collapse bottom tags which didn't work well so yes, I did remove the image.

I know that Wikipedia isn't censored, however from what I read that applies to articles, not the An/ANI board. I won't touch the image, but I will let you know that what you reverted to was my edit that covered the image, not the original edit that actually had the image displayed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wekeepwhatwekill (talk • contribs) 13:33, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

@Wekeepwhatwekill: I didn't revert you (or I didn't mean to), just when I came across it, you had a {{collapse top}} but no {{collapse bottom}}, so all of the threads below the image were also rolled up in the collapse. I intended to just put the bottom on it to restore the other discussions. If I also reverted something you did it was unintentional, maybe we edit-conflicted. I agree that we shouldn't put up offensive images just to be offensive (WP:GRATUITOUS) but I'm pretty neutral on whether that image in particular was offensive. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:19, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Sock blacklist entry

Thanks! I suggest putting a ? after the "n" as that's a common variant: .*geden?gbe.* Crow^Caw 16:24, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for the suggestion, I'm not super terrific at regex. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:27, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

U5

Just a heads up there's a series of editors utilizing WP for their fictional climates to post on other websites (I don't know if it violates outing, but those climates are fake, just google the username + "fictional climate") Praxidicae (talk) 18:25, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind. Could you add a note to your CSD nominations if that's the case? Otherwise these don't look like obvious U5s. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:27, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I mean where to add the note? I can't link to the off-wiki proof, right? There's literally a forum right now that has dozens of these threads with people encouraging others to make fake climate templates and link them there. Yikes.Praxidicae (talk) 18:29, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

If you're using Twinkle pick custom rationale and write something out, like "U5 (or G3) climate data for fake location". I don't think you really need to link to anything. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:31, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

• Fyi: [1] Crow^Caw 18:38, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh, gross. Has there been any on-wiki discussion about these? I think it'll be more permanent (and probably faster) to compile a list and get consensus to mass delete. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:49, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes there are two mfds. There are a LOT more, but idk if it would violate outing to link them...but just google "fictional climate" and you'll get some hits. Praxidicae (talk) 18:56, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how it could violate outing in particular, but feel free to email me if you prefer. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

In that case, here you go, there's also a discussion from a few years ago on NeilN's talk page...do I need to make an ANI thread or just go ahead and tag? Praxidicae (talk) 19:10, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ClimateFictions12345, and feel free to add notes. And keep on tagging if you like, I have to go do something else for a bit. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:23, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I've deleted a few of these too. The way I see it these are both WP:U5 and WP:G3, as they're obvious hoaxes and well outside the scope of the encyclopedia. I'm not sure what the point of the SPI is, as these are most likely multiple people trying to make use of Wikipedia's weather box templates rather than one person trying to disrupt the project. Perhaps they'll use their newfound skills to help write some articles - we can always use people with the patience and skill to work on templates and tables. – bradv🍁 19:32, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Appreciate the help. I see some clear sockpuppetry here, that's all, and if so then some accounts to be blocked and possibly others undiscovered. I agree much of this is probably in good faith, in which case we can steer some already-wikicode-familiar editors into productive activity. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:34, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Here's a short list of some more I found. Praxidicae (talk) 19:42, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

This will probably find you some more. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Or this, restricted to just userspace with a {{weather box}}. – bradv🍁 19:53, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

seems we've struck a chord. Praxidicae (talk) 20:31, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Skytrax

Thanks Ivanvector. Can you please check with Bradv about removing the hastily applied FPP? I don't think it's necessary, especially with the version that the blocked user was pushing preserved. Lard Almighty (talk) 14:23, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

It's been sorted. Thanks again. Lard Almighty (talk) 14:31, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

It hasn't been sorted; see the article's talk page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:36, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I meant the page protection. I agree that there are ongoing issues with the article. Lard Almighty (talk) 14:45, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. I agree it doesn't need to be full-protected, but I'm keeping an eye on it with respect to sockpuppetry. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:47, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

A gentle reminder

that you (probably) forgot to hat the CMTBard AE thread :-) ∯WBG^converse 16:13, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

No, I was going to leave it for a clerk to do. I'll take care of it if nobody else does, thanks for the reminder. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:16, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Clerks in AE? ∯WBG^converse 16:31, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Aren't there? I don't hang around there much, I thought everything to do with Arbcom was actively clerked. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:51, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

No clerks at AE. Usually the admin who implements whatever hats it with the result.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:11, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Done. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:20, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Hopeful2014 cleanup

Thanks for helping to clean this up, but heads up that this user's edits are sometimes reversions of their own earlier work, which is why they haven't all been reverted: this edit from Vince is them more or less removing content added by Hopeful2014 the year before. The user has a strange history of returning to articles they've edited, either hours or months later, from the same account or a different one, and changing something back. --Lord Belbury (talk) 17:24, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! I just did a mass rollback on any of their edits that were current revisions. I don't really know London boroughs at all, I just presumed their edits were incorrect because of the past history. Feel free to undo anything I've done wrong. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:31, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Progress Party (Norway)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Progress Party (Norway). Legobot (talk) 04:30, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Omikroergosum

His user page now mostly consists of personal attacks, without naming names, referring to those who thwart him as "evil-doers" among other things. I'd like to request that this also be blanked as a courtesy. Deb (talk) 14:51, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I removed the bizarre "evildoers" comment, but otherwise I'm inclined to let them rant given that they've already stated they're not going to contribute any more. We haven't handled this very well. If they do keep going I'll reconsider. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:12, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Contributors like this do show up from time to time and sometimes it's difficult to find a way of handling it without doing and saying things we'd prefer not to. Deb (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Good wishes

I came here to thank you for the support and super kind comment at RfA. So I don't want to forget to do that - thank you. But then I read your Dorian notice and so let me also express my fervent hope that you and your family are safe and that you have come through the storm OK. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:47, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: thank you for your note! Yes, we are in Prince Edward Island which only got the force of the storm after it had already passed over Nova Scotia, so a lot of rain and windy enough to bring some small trees down and knock out power for a few hours (but still out in some places) but for the most part relatively unscathed. I posted the note when I wasn't really sure what the full extent was, and then I've been travelling for a few days so I've just left the note up. But yes, we're fine, and thanks again. And congrats on your promotion to the mop crew! Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 17:47, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

User talk:KrishRoyceInc

Hello Ivanvector. A user you blocked before (the one linked above) is still up to the same stuff. You blocked them for disruptivly editing while logged out and they're still doing it. It seems that KrishRoyceInc will create these articles by copying parts of other articles and fusing them together into these super messy articles that others have to clean up. Then any furthur editing is done via their various IPs that trace back to Italy ([2] and [3]). You can see an example here, where the IP edits the article less than five minutes following it's creation. Clearly same person based on the singular focus on articles and drafts created by KrishRoyceInc, the only other edits being linking to said articles. They will also use the IP to edit war reverting without edit summary as seen here, most notably on The Riott Squad article and on The Boss 'n' Hug Connection. The Riott Squad had to be protected to make the redirect stay there. Article's that have been copy-paste created without CC attribution by this user include Draft: The Rascalz, Draft:The Absolution, The Boss 'n' Hug Connection, The North (professional wrestling), Draft:Shirai Sisters, Draft:The Kabuki Warriors and The Riott Squad (now a redirect). Also of note the drafts were published to the mainspace, but moved to drafts due to the such poor condition of the articles. The Boss 'n' Hug Connection and The North (professional wrestling) only surrivied due to them having more notability and users like me coming along and cutting out everything that had nothing to do with the article subject. StaticVapor message me! 16:40, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi STATicVapor! I think you have a valid concern, but it's going to be a few days yet before I have secure access to my admin account. Can you post this at AN? Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 18:27, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the response! Sorry to catch you at a bad time lol. I am just trying to confirm that you mean ANI not WP:AN right? StaticVapor message me! 18:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Topic Ban Request: TakuyaMurata. Hasteur (talk) 23:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Block evasion

Hi Ivanvector. A few months back, you helped with the block of Ressbite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) following some socking. Sadly, they're just evading this with IP accounts. Their modus operandi is the same - foreign language films and motor sports. Here's the most recent example. As they're jumping from IP to IP, I'd be very grateful if this page could be protected for one week, which also falls in line for the deadline of submissions for this category. Apart from the socking, they're also adding content to this article from dubious sources. Any questions, please drop me a ping/note. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:34, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: sorry, you caught me at a bad time and I missed this. Are you still having problems with these IPs? It looks to me to have calmed down. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:34, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi. No worries - hope you're well. Yes, it has calmed down now. Thanks for getting back to me. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:36, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

12:43, 1 October 2019

WP:OBVIOUSSOCK, perhaps? 👌 Hope all's well. ——SerialNumber54129 13:02, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Watch for 4 more edits on Friday and then an edit to some semiprotected page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:06, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Question about SPI: tag or no tag?

I'm curious about Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JoshuaAnderson15, and your decision to block but not tag. This is for my future reference, since I've currently got an application in for CU. Under what circumstances is it appropriate to tag vs not tag? I would think the block itself is the important thing, and the tag is just to make it easier for people to know what's going on without having to rummage through the logs. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:43, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Most of the time, always tag. I decided not to in this case because I think the risk to reoffend is pretty low, so it would just be like a badge of shame on the blocked account. If my assumption of good faith turns out to be unwarranted then we can always go back and tag later. This is kind of a one-off, for the most part if we're not tagging it's because it's no net benefit: old cases where a sockmaster keeps returning to the same things over and over (so it's very obvious who's doing it), cases of an editor being purposely disruptive to collect block swag (WP:DENY), blatantly disruptive usernames (so they aren't listed in the sockpuppet categories), things like that. Most of the time if you're processing cases as a checkuser you'll ask a clerk to handle tagging anyway, although the CU interface does allow some automation of tagging. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:02, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Please help with Nutcase

Please help with [4] and correct the pages the way you want them to be. You are the one who is saying what is supposed to be done so please help accomplish this. --Nicholas0 (talk) 15:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@Nicholas0: I think I already did, see nut case. Do you think it should be done differently? The one bit of weakness in my edits is that now we don't link directly to wikt:nutcase, but it is there as a hatnote on the Wiktionary side so I think it's ok. It's really just two punctuation differences on the same word, in my opinion. That is, "nutcase" doesn't have a different meaning from "nut case". I'm open to your suggestions, though. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:08, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

There are several reasons why a disambiguation page at "Nutcase" makes the most sense:

1: "Nutcase" should be the target because it is the proper spelling (significantly more Google hits as well), while "nut case" is merely an alternative form, as is stated on its Wiktionary page. [5]
2: There is already a Wikipedia page for the film Nutcase. Now when I type "Nutcase" into the search box I am taken to a page for the alternative spelling of "nutcase" but there is no indication that the article for the film even exists. That's an overzealous redirect if it does not give you the option of actually finding the thing you were looking for.
3: "Nutcase" is used in some countries as a term for "helmet". The term has become so synonymous with "helmet" in some countries that there is even a popular helmet brand named Nutcase. A mere redirect does not allow this information or information about anything else bearing this name to be presented.
4: There is a popular Hanayama "Nutcase" puzzle.[6]
Conclusion: A disambiguation page would be the most helpful solution for the user to find the correct target. The current redirect incorrectly assumes that "crazy person" is the only possible interpretation of the term "nutcase". I certainly can't imagine looking up that term in an encyclopedia but I can certainly imagine trying to look up information about the film or the helmet brand. I would mention the things listed above as well as several other items such as album titles, song titles, game titles, and other items on the disambiguation page beginning with "Nutcase or nut case may refer to:". Then I would have the article "Nut case" redirect to the article "Nutcase" because the disambiguation page would cover both spellings and anyone could easily add more options and more information in the future. The current redirect is unnecessarily restrictive in its interpretation of the term, which is used in enough different contexts that a disambiguation page would surely be helpful. --Nicholas0 (talk) 15:33, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Yep, sounds good to me. Do you feel comfortable overwriting the nutcase redirect with a disambiguation page? I can certainly help with that but I'm going to be busy for probably the rest of the day. I'd suggest listing all of the uses for "nutcase" and "nut case" (if there are any spelled that way) on one page, and reversing the redirects as you suggested. I'll check back in over the weekend and see how it's going, or if you have any problems. Cheers! Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:44, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

My sincere apologies.

Good afternoon Greg,

I want to apologize for everything that done or said, from the bottom of my hear, I am sorry.

I also wanted to thank you for blocking me. No jokes. Your block helped me realize that if I wanted to continue here as an editor, I needed a change in my behavior. At first I was real upset about the block and thought that you were against me but I realized that you didn't block me as a punishment but more as a lesson that I needed to learn.

I came to realization that I needed to change and you helped me. Thanks a lot Greg!

Regards! BetterOfThatWay (talk) 17:33, 6 October 2019 (UTC)BetterOfThatWay (talk) 17:33, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

IP edits to Mark Bourrie

Within hours of your 6-month page protection of Mark Bourrie expiring, the games have started again, after being very quiet for 6 months. This has been going on for 13 years now. Can you page protect for a couple of decades? Nfitz (talk) 17:40, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

• Digging deeper - looking at Talk:Mark Bourrie it surely is return of the Mark Bourrie/Spoonkymonkey sockpuppet - I reopened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Spoonkymonkey. Nfitz (talk) 18:33, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@Nfitz: most of the action here happened while I was AFK, but I have upped Bradv's one year protection to indefinite. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:16, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• Fair enough. Part of the challenge is they are actually an intelligent, competent editor, and when staying away from certain individuals, do some good work. If they'd only stand still long enough, a topic ban on living people might end up with a valuable contributor. Nfitz (talk) 14:22, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Happy First edit day!

Hey, Ivanvector. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! PATH SLOPU 10:02, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: R. E. Moore Prize (September 27)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by RoySmith was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:R. E. Moore Prize and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:R. E. Moore Prize, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

-- RoySmith (talk) 15:44, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Ivanvector! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! -- RoySmith (talk) 15:44, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks RoySmith! I'm not the author of this draft, though, I just cleaned it up some. The original author doesn't seem to have been active since writing the original draft over a year ago, and per my comment from a few months ago on the review, it should probably be deleted. I'm going to be busy for a few days but I'll take a look if it hasn't gone to MfD over the weekend. Cheers. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:54, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

ANI re SJ comment

"Whether we add another limited ban on top or not, this looks like it's going to be an indef block before Thanksgiving." - I really hope it doesn't (and I think you feel similarly), hence the reason I opposed the CBAN. However, I'll definitely be hard pressed to not support a CBAN if he's back at ANI by Thanksgiving and I agree that there's a chance it could happen. I think SJ can be productive if they drop the stick. I don't like the idea of pushing away editors that can be constructive. I think they just need some time off and a chance to work through the frustration they're having in a more constructive manner, I'm hoping a month will be enough for that. I'd really like to see them back, productive, and more or less happy. Best wishes, Waggie (talk) 20:54, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think anyone picked up on the fact that when I said Thanksgiving I was referring to Canadian Thanksgiving, which is next Monday. But either way I also hope that's not actually the case. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:27, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Ten Year Society

Dear Ivanvector/Archive 13,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more. ​

Best regards, Chris Troutman (talk) 13:43, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Heh, I already did, but thanks! ;) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:44, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

2019 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Candidates appointed

The Arbitration Committee is pleased to welcome the following editors to the functionary team:

• L235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is appointed as a CheckUser and Oversighter.
• Mz7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is appointed as a CheckUser and Oversighter.
• SQL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is appointed as a CheckUser.
• ST47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is appointed as a CheckUser and Oversighter.
• Stwalkerster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is appointed as an Oversighter.
• The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is appointed as an Oversighter.
• Xaosflux (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is appointed as an Oversighter.

The Committee thanks the community and all candidates for helping to bring this process to a successful conclusion.

The Committee also welcomes the following user back to the functionary team:

• Ivanvector (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who resigned his CheckUser permission in May 2019, is reappointed as a CheckUser following a request to the committee for return of the permission.

The Committee also thanks Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for his long history of contributions to the functionary team. Timotheus Canens voluntarily resigned his CheckUser and Oversight permissions in September 2019.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Katie^talk 15:47, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#2019 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Candidates appointed

TonyBallioni (talk) 19:12, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate the help!

Thanks for editing that page's protection yesterday. I've requested the same from several other admins on their respective talk pages (for the exact same reasons). They appear not to be online (at least recently). Could you update the following pages as well?

User talk:Ks0stm

• Template:Uw-botublock‎
• Template:Uw-uhblock-double‎
• Template:Uw-efblock‎

   Done. Completely inactive for 6 months with a retirement notice on their page, I think it's safe to say they're not going to see your request. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

User talk:Plastikspork

• Template:Sample
• Template:Documentation/start box

  Plastikspork is active but might have missed your note. I left another note for them. If they don't respond after a few days I'll follow up. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

User talk:Noyster

• Template:Campaignbox Sheeba Farms conflict‎ ->Should probably be ECP'd under WP:ARBPIA, not its current rationale

  I didn't change this one, it's EC-protected specifically to enforce a discretionary sanction, and not otherwise a high-risk template. Note that you linked to a redirect - if you look at the protection log at the target (the actual template) you'll see that the correct entry is there in the log. I added {{redirect category shell}} so that the EC-protection on the redirect will be visible. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

User talk:Mifter

• Template:Wikidata redirect
• Template:WikiProject Fungi/class‎
• Template:Crime opentask‎
• Template:Post-nominals/GBR‎
• Template:W-graphical‎
  •  Done. Mifter was active kind of recently but wasn't around for 8 months before that, and has an inconsistent activity history, so it's hard to guess when he'll be back or if he's seen your request at all, so I went ahead with it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Buffs (talk) 16:34, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I saw some of those requests, yeah. I'm going to be pretty busy until after Monday so I can't really commit time to look into these now. If you think it's urgent, could you post at WP:AN? I guess you could also post a request for unprotection at WP:RFPP but I feel like this is probably worth a trip to AN, just as a reminder to everyone that ECP is not supposed to be used on templates. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:43, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's "urgent", so I'll wait. I also do not think that "ECP is not supposed to be used on templates", it just isn't supposed to be used in the manner in which it's liberally being applied in these instances. Some templates are under ArbCom rulings and others are facing persistent disruptive editing...I see no issue with such protection. They just need better clarification in the logs. Buffs (talk) 17:08, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Any chance you could knock these out tomorrow? If not, I'll just ask another Admin. Buffs (talk) 03:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Any update? Buffs (talk) 17:25, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

@Buffs: my apologies again, it's been an unusually intense week. I'll take a look through these this evening. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:22, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

See my notes above. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

You have been selected as a reserve election commissioner for 2019's ArbCom election

Greetings! Thank you for volunteering to serve as an election commission for WP:ACE2019. Following the community discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019/Electoral Commission, you have been selected as a reserve election commissioner for this year's election. Best of luck! — xaosflux ^Talk 00:07, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

🎉🎉🎉! Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:15, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Question on SPI tagging

Thanks for taking a look at this SPI case. I noticed after filing that the Gaditano23 case was merged into Azerti83's investigation. However, Gaditano23 and its associated socks aren't listed under Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Azerti83. Should these also be merged? And is that something anyone could take care of, or is handling those tags strictly the purview of checkusers? Nblund ^talk 23:00, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Nblund: sorry, I missed your note for a few days, but I think yes, the Gaditano23 socks should have been re-tagged, but I'm not positive what happened here. Sro23 is the clerk that did the merge, maybe they have some insight. They also have a couple of excellent corvids on their user page, so that's a good omen. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:28, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I can hardly remember what I was thinking yesterday, let alone last year. Also I don't understand why the Gaditano23 case was merged into the Azerti83 case and not the other way around; Gaditano23 is clearly the older account, having registered in June of 2017 while Azerti83 was created in October of that year. Oh well. I updated the tags. Sro23 (talk) 01:57, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Squawk, Lenore! errr, I mean thanks all for taking a look! Nblund ^talk 02:27, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Qwertywander block

Thanks for that IP subnet block. It's exhausting keeping up with this person. Guy (help!) 14:54, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

SPI procedural close

Hi Ivan, sorry about the duplicate SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scottceneje, obviously I didn't realise Cabayi had already created one. Thanks for doing the procedural close, but I just wanted to point out that one of the potential socks has commented, acknowledging paid editing at the request of another, but put the comment in the duplicate rather than original SPI. I'm not familiar enough with SPIs to know what the best option is, so I'm hoping you will. Thanks, Melcous (talk) 12:55, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I've merged all of the comments into one report. Thanks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:56, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Too easy, thank you! Melcous (talk) 12:58, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Keats KTS

My apologies x2. I only thought the "don't do anything please" note I saw after moving was only related to the move. If I had realized it was more broad, I wouldn't have even edited the page after that. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 13:49, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

No problem, I just got three edit conflicts in a row with you and needed my edit to save before the case was moved again. Still not quite sure who the master actually is. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:51, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Why not arbcom

I was glad to see your nomination but sad to see that you were not running for the arbcom. Perhaps you would consider it in future. I hope you would and you will have my strong support if you do. --DBigXrayᗙ 08:12, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@DBigXray: I appreciate the vote of confidence, and I meant to reply to your note a while back that I'm glad your editing experience has improved. Like I said all along I don't really follow the topics, but it's been a pretty long time since I've seen anything related to India-Pakistan come up at SPI or the admin boards, so we must be doing something right. As for Arbcom, I've had some time to think about it since several editors I respect suggested I should run last year, and I declined then mostly just because I'm busy. Besides still being busy, there are two main, broad reasons I'm not considering a run this year.

• For one, it's been less than six months since I publicly called on the entire membership of the committee to resign as a matter of principle, over a few disagreements in interpretation of policy. Several of those members will still be on the committee next year, and it's not that I'm so much concerned about not being able to work with them, we're all adults, but Arbcom is supposed to be an impartial body, and having the perception of infighting among members weakens the committee as a whole.
• The other, more important reason is that it's become vogue among many editors to treat the committee as the community's punching bag. Criticism of the committee is definitely warranted at times, but many editors are just lining up to openly attack and harass committee members over every statement and decision. Some of the editors involved are open on-wiki about their intent to dismantle the committee through these actions, and indeed the only arbitrators who have tried to respond to these waves of open harassment have themselves been harassed off the committee or bullied off the project. Somehow as a community we've fostered an environment where this is just par for the course, that one must be expected to endure this unending abuse just to participate here, and somehow the editors involved are clueless to the fact it's their own actions and apologism for harassment that inspire the WMF to step in and ban people (often the wrong people). Until the community does some serious introspection about this serious problem, and a few people at the centre of it are kicked out, it's unlikely I'll be interested in purposely opening myself to more harassment than I already get as a checkuser.

So that's my thoughts on the matter, and in a nutshell why you'll not see my name on an Arbcom ballot next month. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:12, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot for taking time to respond. These are valid points and clarifies your stand. Hope things improve in the coming years so that you change your mind to run sometime. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

BKFIP (again)

Hi, thanks for range blocking 92.41.0.0/17 - looks like the user came straight back on 188.30.36.33 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)), which resolves to 188.30.32.0/19 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), another Three UK address. I've blocked for an equal length of time (3 months), but I'd like this reviewed, as I'd prefer my actions to be backed up by other admins. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:58, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Thumbs up from me, that's obviously the same user. Personally I wouldn't block these ranges for very long because it looks like there's some collateral, not that you should change yours, just saying. I blocked the other one longer than I normally would because of its block log - BKFIP is using it repeatedly. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:03, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay - there is quite a bit of collateral on there, though no edits in the past five days. I'm quite happy for you to reduce it to whatever you see fit, as I think you're more experienced in this area than I am. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:06, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Note

Regarding this [7] Killershark101 has resumed editing... nonsense edits [8]. ♟♙ (talk) 21:13, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

thank you

thank you for allowing me to edit Moscowdreams (talk) 19:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2019).

Administrator changes

GermanJoe • Girth Summit • Kees08 • Nosebagbear

DESiegel • GB fan • MSGJ • Voice of Clam • WilyD

DeltaQuad • Fang Aili • Pakaran

Bureaucrat changes

DeltaQuad • Pakaran

Interface administrator changes

MSGJ

CheckUser changes

L235 • Mz7 • SQL • ST47

Ivanvector

DeltaQuad

Oversight changes

L235 • Mz7 • ST47 • Stwalkerster • The Blade of the Northern Lights • Xaosflux

DeltaQuad • DGG • Julia W

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC was closed with the consensus that the resysop criteria should be made stricter.

• The follow-up RfC to develop that change is now open at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2019 Resysop Criteria (2).

• A related RfC is seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors may now nominate themselves as candidates for the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections. The self-nomination period will close November 12, with voting running from November 19 through December 2.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Block evasion

Hello. After you blocked Harlyn35, a couple Madrid-based IPs have began editing Genocide of indigenous peoples. Initially to restore all of the sock's edits [9] and now to edit the same section [10] [11] as the sock. Hrodvarsson (talk) 03:17, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

That's pretty obvious. I've blocked the latest IP and semiprotected the page. If any more IPs or new accounts continue reverting that same edit, please report it to WP:SPI as I'm going to be away for a bit. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:36, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

User:MHist01

Hi Ivanvector. You blocked this account per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/J-Man11. The account created Iona College Pipe Band and uploaded File:MacLean of Duart, Modern.jpg for use in the article. I had some concerns about whether there was some COI editing involved and also about the notability of the band article, but figured I'd give the creator a chance to clarify the former and try to improve the latter (as suggested at WT:UNI#The Iona College Pipe Band) before bringing things up for discussion at COIN or AFD. However, since the article and file are technically the work of someone evading a block, I'm wondering if those things are even necessary now. The file was being discussed at WP:MCQ#File:MacLean of Duart, Modern.jpg where concerns were raised about it's copyright status, but again not sure if that matters now because of the socking, etc. Any idea as to what to do here? Some admins feel that content created by accounts evading blocks should be deleted as a matter of principle, but others tend to take things more on a case-by-case basis. Once again, I've tried to doing some WP:BEFORE for the band, but haven't had much luck and don't see it really surviving an AfD unless much better sources are found. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:22, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I didn't notice you were on a Wikibreak when I posted this; so, apologize for that. Anyway, things were sorted out by another admin. Hope you enjoy your break. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

  Boo!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello Ivanvector:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – DBigXrayᗙ 15:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Is it celebrated in your area in any form ? just curious. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! Yes it's a significant celebration around here, on par with Christmas (IMO). I didn't this year, I didn't have any candy and my wife was working anyway so I hid out in the basement and let the dog bark at the few children who came to our door. It was also kind of miserable weather so I don't think there were many folks out anyway. Do you celebrate in your part of the world? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:17, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I became aware of this festival only through hollywood movies. I like the horror genre, and there are many movies on this theme. I was under the impression that it is only popular in US (or maybe Mexico). So the fact that is celebrated in a big way at your place is new info for me. Those kids must have got the scare . Halloween is not a part of Indian culture or traditions, so it is mostly not celebrated. In the metropolitan cities that are aware of the western culture (through movies/cartoons of course) it is celebrated among the young people and kids. For example you will find some of the pubs and restaurants decorated in the Halloween theme and the patrons are suggested to wear accordingly for the event. A publicity stunt basically. A few fancy dress competitions might be held in Colleges and schools. Horror movies will be played on the TV channels. And that's about it. I am a dog lover myself, so I am curious which breed you have?--DBigXrayᗙ 07:23, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Clutter family murders

Hello. Can you please weigh in at the discussion here ---> Wikipedia:Help desk#Clutter family murders? You were involved previously and you (originally) uncovered/discovered the "reverse copyright" scenario. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:40, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@Joseph A. Spadaro: sorry, I was away in a cabin in the mountains in Nova Scotia with no internet access when you posted this and it seems to have rotated off of the help desk already. Let me know if there's something still going on that I can help with. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hijiri88

Well, there was "no consensus" to delete. (Discounting the four editors who showed up after you to express their personal dislike of me and my editing, it was 5-2 in favour of deletion, but I guess MFD closers generally don't deal with harassment by long-term "good-faith" contributors.)

Any chance I could still get the page deleted/suppressed through some other method? (I'd also be happy to discuss this by email.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Hijiri88: see my note above to Joseph A. Spadaro; I've been away. Honestly, there's very little that we are empowered to do locally about this; I'll explain why before I make a controversial suggestion below. I suggested in my comment that you could approach oversight about scrubbing your IP addresses from the page but you'd have to make a good case why it should be removed now after being visible for 10 months, when you disclosed it yourself, and when you maintain a list in your user space of previous accounts and IPs you've used. Anyway they would not delete the page, just remove private information. You could approach Arbcom but they are not empowered to delete pages (I personally made a big scene about that exact issue less than six months ago) and if they decided to ignore that policy again in this case (because harassment or whatever) it would be another massive drama-fest and would lead to more harassment regardless of the outcome. Your real last resort on-wiki is going to be ANI, where (as you know) there are a large cadre of experienced editors who push back against any attempts to deal with harassment, because it weakens their hand in long-term editorial disputes, though they mask their motive in inappropriate "because policies" and "maintain a record of abuse" type arguments. You know this last bit intimately: several of those editors voted to keep this page explicitly because they can use it to hound you based on a conclusion they've drawn that was explicitly refuted at SPI. It's grossly inappropriate, but I say again that there's little we can do about it. So here's my suggestion: contact the Wikimedia Foundation's Trust & Safety team directly, explain the situation, refer to this comment if you like (I'll gladly speak with them if they contact me about it), and then say no more about it on Wikipedia because nobody here will do the right thing (I risk several of my bits if I delete the page on an IAR rationale) and it will just draw more of the wrong kind of attention. Do feel free to email me if you like. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

HS2000

Hello.Please check the user Pikkyunosen I think it's the same sockpupet VJ-Yugo because after he managed to change and put terrorists under the user on the HS2000 page as it stands today he started immediately and changed on the HS Product VHS page.So if it is, please change it and put it on Tom.Reding edit.Thank you https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HS2000&diff=920103574&oldid=916957939 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.2.221 (talk) 14:48, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't remove that edit based on possible block evasion, that account did not come up in my checks for one thing but also the edit was restored by another administrator (courtesy ping El C) and in my review it is reliably sourced. Please drop the notion that we are "popularizing terrorists" - Wikipedia does not promote any particular point of view, we simply repeat information that can be verified with reliable sources, and if ISIL is using this weapon then it does not violate any policies to say so. However, I did review the source in some detail, and it seems that Amnesty has only listed one instance of having found one of these handguns in one ISIL cache, so it seems it may be somewhat undue weight to list ISIL as a prominent user based on this one instance. One would expect a rogue militia of this sort to use whatever weapons they can get their hands on, not necessarily purchase from or be armed by any particular supplier. If you feel strongly about it you should start a discussion on the article's talk page since it is currently protected. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:46, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that the source only lists one handgun having been found. I have therefore removed ISIS as a user. El_C 16:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

So he put the image as the source of a terrorist with that rifle that was stolen from the Iraqi army on the HS Product VHS page. Thank you all. Goodbye — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.2.221 (talk) 17:00, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that source appears to be garbage. It's drawing a conclusion off of a Twitter photo. The Amnesty report doesn't explicitly refute it (it's not a list of guns that ISIL doesn't use, who would compile such a thing?) but it also doesn't list the VHS anywhere in its very thorough report. I think it's reasonable to discredit this source. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:23, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

That it was a pair of seized rifles from the Iraqi army, no one sold it to them. Will come again in a few days sockpupet VJ-Yugo when protection expires had dynamic ip just write some nickname to change it, thats not giving up :).Thanks all — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.2.221 (talk) 17:45, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

1rr for AP

That was worded ambiguously. It would only apply to Snoogansnoogans. Is that what you understood? Doug Weller talk 21:17, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Message

Hi Ivan. There's a new message on your Meta-wiki user talk page. Would you take a look? 2402:1980:824A:7ED7:3D34:1E3E:65FE:C014 (talk) 16:48, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Just in case I screwed up the ping...

Just wanted to make sure you saw the SPI check I opened here about the continued quackery at Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples. There's no rush here, but I figure you already know the case, and you mentioned you might have an additional check through centralauth in your last closure. Nblund ^talk 21:43, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Out of curiosity

Your recent !vote here assumed that the majority of listings at the "Rescue List" result in editors improving the AFD-nominated articles so they do not get deleted. But what about cases where they do not actually improve the articles (either making them worse by introducing poorly sourced content/OR or not actually editing the articles at all) but !vote in the AFDs anyway, resulting in either a "no consensus" result or a "keep" depending on how many non-ARS members happened to stop by? With Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming, for instance, it's been over two days since the ARS posting, with no substantial improvement of the article itself and at least three members of ARS (not including myself) showing up to !vote "keep" and thus far accounting for 3/7 of the keep !votes in the discussion (not counting the SPA). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:58, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I think you're preaching to the wrong admin here, Hijiri88. I get what you're saying, but I'm generally of the opinion that AfDs should survive on the basis of the topic's prospective notability alone, not on the present quality of the article. Furthermore nominating an article for deletion does not compel immediate resolution of every issue with it to stave off deletion - WP:NOTCLEANUP and WP:NODEADLINE are still widely endorsed opinions with which I agree. The other issue with the MfD is that ARS has been nominated so many times, always with the same rationale and the same outcome, that it's become pointlessly disruptive, which is why I just copied and pasted my argument from the previous discussion complete with the timestamp.

If you find that ARS participants are regularly arguing to keep hopeless topics then it's probably an issue that should be raised at ANI, not in another MfD, because it's a behavioural issue. Personally I've not seen much evidence that that's happening, certainly not to a level that warrants shutting down the project, but I also don't spend a lot of time at AfD. And this is all just one guy's opinion, of course. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:48, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I get what you're saying, but I'm generally of the opinion that AfDs should survive on the basis of the topic's prospective notability alone, not on the present quality of the article. Well, maybe, but at mottainai, ARS editors showed up and steamrolled the AFD (which was based on WP:NOTDICT rather than notability) without making any attempt to improve the article, and then tried to prevent any improve the article as much as five years later. (Or six -- I don't doubt that there is some sockpuppetry afoot on the page right now.) One particular ARS member routinely posts lists of GBooks hits, none of which he has apparently read and none of which could be used to improve the article, and is followed thereafter by others who say "Keep per Andrew Davidson". What would you say to amending the ARS CoC to say that editors who have not actually edited the article should not show up to !vote on the AFD? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:01, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I apologize for missing the point you're making, it's late here and I'm about to sign off for the evening, but I don't think I'm following your argument. Mottainai as it was in 2013 seems as though it was easily more than a dictionary definition (which, by the way, is a notability argument), and although I do see a few of his edits in the page history I don't see how you're getting to "prevent[ing] any improve[ment of] the article", or maybe the connection to Andrew Davidson is a non sequitur (another WP:DICDEF with an article, and a disambiguation that's painful to navigate). Could it be that you're holding a grudge and it's clouding your view of the situation? I don't mean to imply anything, just trying to gently offer something to think about.

As to your suggestion, I would be very strongly against setting restrictions on who may participate in which content discussions, per WP:ANYONECANEDIT. If ARS members unreasonably bias a discussion to an illogical conclusion you can always request a deletion review. You may also have to accept that things don't always go our way on Wikipedia, and even if you're right, some things are just not worth the drama. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 01:33, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

This is a test message. You can delete this if you don't see any issues with this statement

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:42, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

About my blocking

First I'd like to thank you for unblocking me, and acknowledging that I did not intentionally block evade. Well, certainly not the second time, as I was, as far as I had been informed, no longer blocked.

I am, however, perplexed and disturbed by the other things you said. You stated "If you happen to find yourself blocked again in the future and you believe it to be improper or in error, the proper process to appeal has been explained to you several times now", but... That is exactly what I did. The proper process clearly states, that before trying to appeal the block, I must first ascertain why I was blocked. This is done by asking the admin who blocked me (in my talk page, with a ping) why they blocked me, and it is clearly stated that the admin must answer this. I did exactly that, and yet not only did User:Bbb23 not explain why I was blocked, but he proceeded to block me from even editing my talk page. The very same admin who pointed me to WP:GAB, responded to me properly following it, by refusing to have anything to do with the process, himself, and instead punish me further. How that could possibly (even being as generous as one could be) be though to be acting in good faith is beyond any ability of mine, to comprehend.
This has been the only response I have ever gotten, when I have tried to go through the proper process to appeal. You're not supposed to post an ANI, unless you've exhausted every other possible avenue ...which I have. Any avenue that involves talking with the relevant admins, being clearly invalid, as that only leads to instant blocking. No options are left to me.
Rather than telling me to follow the proper process (which I have), how about you instead tell those other who blocked me, to do so? "With great power, comes great responsibility"

None of my complaints or accusations could possibly be said, to be about merely "not being perfect", or making mistakes. Such things would be acceptable, of course. No, these are clear and obvious, and unmistakably intentional, violations of the rules! As WP:ASSUME states: "Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it." If what I've stated above, and more-so in the report I filed, isn't clear evidence, I don't know what is! As such I will file it (with some modification, taking inspiration from what I've written here) to the Arbitration Committee (albeit with a slight delay, due to issues in regards to the new e-mail I'm making, to send it ...given my great mistrust of Wikipedia, due to this whole ordeal. Mistrust which may get a bit lighter, or turn into solid distrust, depending on how it goes. If I didn't have any hope left for Wikipedia, I'd simply just leave forever, but that has not happened ...just yet)

Also, your mention of hounding, doesn't really make any sense to me. When, where, and how, have I possibly gone to other discussions that the editors are engaged in, just to oppose them there? (having been a victim of hounding in the past, I'm well aware of the policy). To quote WP:HOUNDING: "...is the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work." I fail to see how anything I've done, could possibly apply, in any way. I do, however, see how I've been a victim of hounding, in this ordeal, on the other hand. The latest example being how User:Drmies went in to an AfD I was engaged in, and closed it against me, despite the time not being up and despite him not being an "uninvolved admin", as is required (uninvolved in terms of the article, perhaps, but certainly not when it comes to me. That he just happened to take a look at that particular AfD, is something I cannot consider coincidence. Especially as it still had many days left. Even if it were, he should have recused himself, due to bias)

As for engaging my energy to creating content instead... How am I supposed to do that, when I get blocked for no reason, all the time? The only reason I'd bother to edit Wikipedia, at all, is because it has rules and structures, making it reliable. Yes, Wikipedia's rules have a certain flexibility as well as an acceptance/understanding towards ignorance of the rules, which I firmly agree with, and I like the "rules are principles" thing, but... there are rules. Structures. Procedures.
If the rules aren't followed, especially if they are routinely broken by the admins... Then they are completely meaningless. If editors are at the mercy of the whims of admins, rules are enforced arbitrarily, and people get punished for no apparent reason, with no possible way to appeal...
What point is there, to contribute to Wikipedia? How can it be trustworthy? How could it be in any way tolerable, to engage in it?

...and are people not allowed to just occasional edit? I haven't had the energy to deal with the things I must deal with, before I'd ever get back to active/regular/serious editing, on Wikipedia (I'd first have to assemble a draft report on the guy who hounded me [for if/when he starts again], which made me not be able to deal with editing any more. Making the report, that is ...and then do a few other things, including going through my watchlist, to see what's happened to those articles... I simply don't have the energy to deal with that, hence why I've not done serious editing, for many years) ...and this ordeal has made me doubt that there is any merit in doing so.--213.113.121.42 (talk) 08:43, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Cheenarman

Re Special:Diff/926798692: I did in Special:Diff/926409182. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

@JJMC89: Huh, I guess you did. It was coming up with the big red "Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets ... does not exist" message but you clearly created it a couple days ago. I purged the sockpuppet user page and it went away. I guess it's a caching issue. Thanks for following up! Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 02:27, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Hutch–Kinahan feud

Hi, thanks for reverting the anon IP edits at Hutch–Kinahan feud - similar edits have been made by 78.18.99.249 - I have reverted these and left warnings on the talk page of the latest IP addres. These edits follow a pattern made by other accounts with 78.18.x.x addresses on that page. I realise that it's not feasible to block a large range of IP addresses, though I wonder if it's now severe enough to worth asking for WP:PAGEPROTECT? (I have requested before and it was turned down.) Autarch (talk) 22:44, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

SPI Soulspinr

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Soulspinr (The case being closed I suppose I must put my comment here)

"These are one edit and one revert to the same edit from nearly two months ago". This tells me nothing. If after two months you can no longer identify socks why don't you just say so. "...you should base your rationale on the content of the edit...". Of course, but I long since gave up editing, retiring exhausted after a long tussle with this guy on the article in question (which you would not know). Nonetheless, I still look at the article occasionally. Alerted by the caustic tone of the comment, and knowing that Ontario Teacher had already made the same edit in the past, I looked at the IPs other edits. Since it all looks like Ontario Teacher I reported it. I asked for 'backup' because there is not a chance in hell that I will revert an edit of his without some kind of official support, for fear of getting into another war. After all, someone already reverted the edit and it was promptly re-inserted. So the edit will remain and the deterioration of the article advances another notch. At least the (apparently permanent) IP address is now documented. --BalCoder (talk) 18:24, 22 November 2019 (UTC)BalCoder

"This tells me nothing." Well, yes, there's nothing that I can add to confirm your suspicion, we're not permitted to connect IPs to accounts per the privacy policy. It could be Soulspinr (who I also first encountered during the Ontario Teacher era) or it could be any of a large number of other political sockpuppets that keep turning up on these same IP ranges - I know of at least five just from memory. My gut feeling is that yes, it's one of them, but I couldn't tell you which. And the IP is not static ("permanent"), it's a mobile ISP in southern Ontario and it's basically guaranteed that they've moved on to some other IP by now, so blocking this one would be pointless and would probably affect some unrelated user. That's why we normally won't do anything about IP edits that are more than a day or two old. So you can use block evasion as a rationale for restoring the section, but it's better and more permanent if you can rationalize restoring the content because you have a good reason to include it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:39, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

178.40.152.153 block evasion as 78.98.54.148 and possible sockpuppet of Symes2017

Hi, could you please help with the IP? I explained more about it here. The IP clearly evaded the block, so why was nothing done about it? Now this happened. I suspect that's the IP (the IP block also included the account creation block; and if that's really the IP, it violated that one too). The IP stopped editing or replying me and now suddenly there's this user, created seemingly on 23 November 2019, who supported the IP's edits. I'm afraid it's a sockpuppet of the IP, who isn't showing any good faith anymore, despite me explaining it to self-revert and notify the block evasion (why didn't you or anyone else replied me here about my notification of the IP's block evasion?--Davide King (talk) 08:50, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Davide King. I have blocked the user's account and their new IP, as it's clear they are the same user as the originally blocked IP and that they created the account to evade the block. As for why nobody acted on your request, note that pings are not generated unless you also sign your edit, so adding the {{ping}} template here did not generate a notification. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:10, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Ivanvector, this is a new user ostensibly unfamiliar with socking who already agreed to observe the remainder of the IP block at User talk:Symes2017. Is indef really the route here and can you discuss with them directly or do they need to do a formal {{unblock}} request? czar 22:29, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

@Czar: thanks for checking in. Indef is the usual course of action for users who sock multiple times. I haven't followed that discussion, but if you're confident that the user is genuinely new and made an innocent error with respect to the use of multiple accounts, intends to stick to one account from now on, and understands our edit warring policy (the rationale behind the original block), then I don't have any special reason the block on their account can't be lifted. That would be a positive outcome in my opinion. It's evening here and I'm going to be offline for the next several hours so please feel free to use your discretion with respect to shortening or lifting the block. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:58, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Looks like it's been lifted. Thank you! czar 01:11, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Here is my comment on the matter. You're free to check or correct me if I said anything wrong or that you disagree with.--Davide King (talk) 18:52, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Canada 10,000 Challenge award

		The Bronze Maple Leaf Award
		This maple leaf is awarded to Ivanvector (a.k.a. PEIsquirrel) for writing five Prince Edward Island-related articles during the third year of The 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Reidgreg (talk) 17:22, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! That reminds me, there's a bunch more I just never added to the list .... Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, okay, one. Fixed now. I made a bunch more for electoral districts but I won't add those. I added at least one as PEIsquirrel too. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Ack! I just came back here to give the award to PEIsquirrel – how did I not notice that earlier? I've adjusted the article count from 3 to 5 new articles and upgraded the award from red to bronze. I read them all, BTW, great work! Anything added to the list this month (November) will count toward next year's award. – Reidgreg (talk) 19:59, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Ah, well that should be 4 then I think, I created Prince Edward Island Route 27 just this month. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Got your email. The articles I found on the list for Nov 2018 – Oct 2019 were: Philip Brown (Charlottetown politician), Blockhouse Point Light. List of Prince Edward Island provincial electoral districts, Prince Edward Island automobile ban and The Ark (Prince Edward Island). I have to clean up the master list a bit. If it's okay, I'll put them all under this account... otherwise I may forget when next year rolls around. – Reidgreg (talk) 04:17, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: Ah, the Ark, I missed that one when I counted. Yeah, it's all fine to group them under my main account. Cheers! Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:51, 27 November 2019 (UTC)