User talk:Ivanvector/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 18

A bit of help please

Hello I. Congrats on the Canada award! The protection here was needed of course. If you could do one more thing and add <noinclude></noinclude> tags around the pp template that will get any pages that the userbox is on out of the Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. As I am not an admin I can't make the edit myself. Thanks ahead of time and have a nice weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 21:34, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done. I also wrapped the MfD template so the existing transclusions wouldn't be a giant box on the users' pages. Thanks for the suggestion! Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:07, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

You are welcome and thanks for the edit. Cheers! MarnetteD|Talk 22:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Sock Puppet Terrymate1

Dear Sir, you recently created a sock puppet investigation of user:Terrymate1. You also mentioned my username in this investigation. I would also let you know someone has created a duplicate name (User:MydSon1) of my username. Kindly remove my name from this investigation as i am not involved in it. DMySon (talk) 05:53, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi DMySon, thanks for your note. I saw the account "MydSon1" in that investigation, and I put the note there to show that it's an account made to impersonate you, not an account that you made. That's so that if anyone else sees your two account names, they'll know that I already checked and won't think that it's your account. I hope that's okay, I can't really remove it now. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:08, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

requesting List of fictional nannies userfied so I can export it to the List Wikia/fandom

You are listed at: Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles and unlike the first two names I randomly clicked, you are currently still active on Wikipedia. I asked the administrator who deleted the article at User_talk:Lord_Roem#List of fictional nannies but he doesn't know how to do that apparently. It got deleted before I had time to export it to https://list.fandom.com/ Dream Focus 01:08, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

@Dream Focus: I don't mind restoring it, but if you're going to copy the content to another site that presents a copyright issue, as our license requires attribution for use in other works. I'll post a note at AN and hopefully this can be resolved quickly. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 02:54, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

This list is short enough that a full history export should be possible. See https://list.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_apologies_to_China?action=history for an example of that. Been doing this for years. The Wikipedia rules even once that some material belonged elsewhere and should be transwikied to wikia. Its why Special:export exist. Dream Focus 03:17, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Seems like you know what you're doing. See User:Dream Focus/List of fictional nannies, and please tag for deletion (WP:G7 should do) when you're done. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 03:29, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Rollback

This article should be rolled back to the last protected revision. In between edits are sock edits mostly. Otherwise this person would definitely comeback as it is the pattern. It seems this person has a notion that editing can be continued by simply using a new account, that's why he is persistently returning and editing the same articles. All possible edits should be rolledback to stop this. 2409:4073:38D:1CFE:815A:B50D:D39A:A8EB (talk) 16:16, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 14, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, CodeLyoko^talk 03:26, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Case evidence

Hey, I'm posting this here because I prefer not to post to the Evidence page. I'm not sure where Katie said she posted to RHaworth's Talk page. AFAIK, she did not. Perhaps she meant this post to Velanatti's Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:58, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Paxful

Hey. It looks like you creation protected Paxful indefinitely in 2017.[1] Nevertheless it has been created several times since then, see [2]. So, I creation protected it again, after a request at RFPP... but I don't understand it. The "l" (lowercase L) is a real L everywhere — not a 1 — as far as I can see. Anyway, merry Christmas! Bishonen | talk 22:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC).

@Bishonen: thanks for checking up on it! It looks like an editor sandboxed the page and then CambridgeBayWeather moved it through protection. That seems to have made the protection invalid? Looks to me like it should stay protected. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:08, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Ah. Complicated. I expect that was it. Bishonen | talk 20:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC).

You've got mail

Hello, Ivanvector. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Padavalam Kuttan Pilla  Talk  21:53, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Symes2017 again?

As admitted here, the user in question seems to have an addiction problem and I'm afraid new accounts may be created. Izuru Kamukura could be another one. It edited the Democratic socialism page and the pattern seems similar. Removing brackets or editing spelling in quotes when they should be copied exactly as they are; change -ise to -ize even when there's the use British English template and the whole page is written in British English spelling (labour, -ise, etc.); add (pictured above) in image's caption and edit it in an unnecessary way so as to add a dot at the end, etc. It's just one edit for now, but as having seen all of the edits at Social democracy, I've been accostumated to them, it seems to be the same pattern and so it looks suspictious to me. Let me know if this was helpful and if it matches.--Davide King (talk) 21:26, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Ivanvector, I'm 90% sure it's still Symes2017 et all. Another thing is the same mistake. Compare an left-wing anti-Leninist and anti-Stalinist big tent (Social democracy) and a authoritarian Marxist–Leninist state (Democratic socialism). I hope something can be done about it to verify whether it's the same user because it already reverted and made most of the same mistakes again, notwithstanding the edit summary.--Davide King (talk) 16:44, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@Davide King: apologies for my delayed response. I've been very busy lately and haven't had much time for Wikipedia. I think the situation is resolved for now. If the user returns you should add a new report to the SPI right away, request checkuser, and another admin will be able to review. Feel free to ping me, though, but I might not be able to respond quickly. Thanks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:42, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: Hey, no worries. I apology for mentioning/pinging you too much and I hope that didn't bother/annoy you or caused any issue, but I thought it was important and necessary to check that as soon as possible because to me it clearly looked like the same user and even got the page protected due to edit warring. I was just about to send you a message asking you what I should do if it happens because the user clearly has a problem with that. I will still try to talk to the user and I hope it won't happen again. No, thanks to you so much for your work and advices.--Davide King (talk) 06:24, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: Oh yes, I forgot about asking if you were able to find out the first account since you {{[didn't] believe at all that Adrian Fey is this user's first account}}; or was it later already confirmed to be SmalforaGiant?--Davide King (talk) 06:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

CU policy (Ear-phone)

This has gotten way out of hand. My original comments were private and not really intended to be copied wholesale to AN. I've tried hard, without violating policy, to steer people away from the CU "results", but editors are stubborn.

But that's not why I'm here. It's about your first comment. What "orientation" do you mean? Did you get something special when you were first appointed? And what part of the global policy overrides the sentence in local policy? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

A bunch of us newbies last year had a call with Rob and Amanda and I don't remember who else where they showed us around the tools and answered questions, and I remember it coming up that global policy allowed revealing an IP address with the user's consent but the local policy overrode that. But you're right, I don't see it written that way in the local policy now. Now that I'm thinking more about it, that might have had to do with running a check when the user requests, as in, "user request" is not a valid reason to check according to local policy. I haven't had a good read of the policy today and it could have changed since 16 months ago. I think it's best practice to not reveal anything, anyway. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

It's true that policy prohibits a user's request for a CU to prove their "innocence". There's a fine line between that and a user giving permission to disclose their IP, which is permitted by policy. In this particular instance, that fine line is very fine indeed. I have seen a CheckUser discuss IP edits with a user who permitted the disclosure. Personally, my reaction is a visceral one. It's so ingrained in me not to disclose IP addresses of users, I just can't bring myself to do it. Now that I read your comment above, I think I misunderstood your comment at AN. As I understand it, local policy cannot permit something that global policy prohibits, but local policy can be otherwise inconsistent with global policy. Each such case should of course be carefully examined.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Lesbian erasure article and editing in the transgender or transgender-related areas

• I have moved this section without prejudice to ANI. You've all been pinged. Further replies here will be reverted. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:11, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

PunjabCinema07

The game's afoot.-- Deepfriedokra 17:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry about that

I'd forgotten you would probably be getting e-mails about edits on this page (myself, I filter WP notices into a dedicated mailbox and don't check it frequently, which is probably a luxury admins don't have).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:38, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry. Kingarthur581 (talk) 17:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

About vandalizing wikipedia page

I am very sorry. I was originally trying to update the military power by country list in capability section but my network was so disruptive that I was trying to save after a short time of editing by putting random summaries. But I eventually gave up after getting warned . I am very sorry I didn't mean to vandalize any page. Kingarthur581 (talk) 17:00, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Editing without logging in

Sorry if I have done it.. I sure must've overlooked it. Regards thanks for pointing out. Azmarai76 (talk) 20:00, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Pending Changes

Would you mind doing a pending changes protection for Dave Pennington. Well intentioned additions but no engagement on talk page of user and 2 BLP (minor) additions means that until they start talking the wending changes might be helpful. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:09, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@Hell in a Bucket: I didn't; I had a look at the dispute and it looks like the IP was trying to undo your changes to the date, and if the date was supposed to be October 1 and not January 10 then they were doing it correctly. But when I looked further to determine what the proper date should be, I found that it is not available in any reliable sources, so I removed it instead. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:16, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, so to point out the date was correct as was, so was the change but the problem came in at it isn't a uniform change. If you see [[3]] that is actually the way most of the rest of the worlds does date, 10 January 1966 would read 10/01/1966. The references are similarly formatted, it fits MOS:DATEUNIFY. That being said your solution works too, I didn't review the sourcing. The other part that had been a concern was adding the family and children names but those were only added twice. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:26, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I am Dave's wife, I changed the date to his correct date of birth, 1st October 1966, if you would like proof of his DOB, date he died, my marriage license or anything else I can send you it. People keep changing facts about my late husband which is upsetting. He did not die after a short illness, it was suddenly and unexpected, it took 10 months to finally have an inquest and a year to register his death, certainly wasn't an illness

If I give you the correct information can it please be locked permanently. I wanted to keep his page for his children but not if people keep changing the facts.

Thank you Vpennington74 (talk) 17:55, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm very sorry for your loss, it's important to note though that Wikipedia is here to be edited. The only reason it is locked is because of the additions and changes you were making. The date actually read his correct birthdate, it was in a format not widely used in the United States. The reason I reverted you is because it was different from the other formatted dates on that page. IF you can provider reliable third party sourcing that would satisfy WP:RS you can ask me or put in the suggested change on the article and an editor can approve it. Please note that although this was your husband, the page is not yours or for your children. It is for anyone who wishes to research him. If you can provider reliable sourcing for what you want changed you can feel free to let me know and I will help add it or explain why the change isn't one we would benefit from. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:04, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I never added the date originally or the info box, I just went to have a look and it said his date of birth was 10th Jan 1966, so I changed it and checked the preview was correct. Now things Dave had removed himself have been added today after I'd changed his date of birth.

I didn't know not to add spouse or children it was there in the info box so I added this. Dave was shocked to find he was on wiki to start with so he was really happy, it might not be for myself or children but it is something they can look back on and see what he achieved without facts being incorrect. Vpennington74 (talk) 18:18, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I get it. I would very much like to correct the record. Can you point me to what you want fixed and if you have reliable third party sources for what you want added. Similarly if there is information that is UNSOURCED, I will remove what you say is wrong. If there is a source backing up that fact it gets complicated but I'm willing to help you achieve your goal. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:24, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Just noticed, in a format not widely used in the United States? We are not in the United States we are in the United Kingdom, would this be the r Vpennington74 (talk) 18:40, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry it sent before i was finished.

Would this be the reason it was not showing correctly?

How can I send proof of DOB and death other than a death certificate. His obituary was online and still is I can check this and send a link? Vpennington74 (talk) 18:43, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it is actually correct but it is in a different format. I had tried to explain this to you on the IP page but understandably this place is a labyrinth. The only reason I had reverted you is because the rest of the dates in use were in the other way. If you see the References for example. The obituary is something I would consider a reliable source. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:48, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I've tried to send but it's not showing as sent.

funeral-notices.co.uk/North+East-Teesside-Middlesbrough/death-notices/notice/PENNINGTON/1839752 Vpennington74 (talk) 19:04, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I will review that, hey just to point out so maybe you understand a little better about the changes that were made by me on his page, on your husbands obituary pictures reads GREAT BLOKE,SADLY MISSED, DAVID JOHN PENNINGTON, 16/07/2018. Maybe that helps understand the 10/01/1966 part. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

For DOB I will try his records and results on WPC and British Powerlifting Union because he had to show ID/Passport before every competition. 1st one I tried only has year of birth not date and month.

Dave had removed all his earlier information regarding bodybuilding and left info relating to powerlifting only Vpennington74 (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

That's partially why we discourage a person editing or curating the page about themselves or subjects they have close connections to. Sometimes what may not seem relevnat or desired by the subject is reported because it may be by someone else. One very correct action Ivan Vector (sorry for spamming your talkpage) was right in doing was removing the Date of birth because it wasn't reliably sourced. It isn't critical to the article in the end and it's more important the information was right and correctly sourced. I have also updated and sourced the cause of his death as a result of an injury in competition as well. He seems to have been a great guy and motivated body builder. I'm sure you miss him greatly. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

We do, it was a big shock, he was fit, heathly and strong. He went into hospital for a sports injury and never came home. He was preparing for a competition,the European championships in France, it was his last practice session before the competition.

The British Powerlifting Union now have the David Pennington memorial trophy/shield which they give to the best bench press at the Alan Collins Cup, he was very well liked. Hoping I can source his DOB on their site. Vpennington74 (talk) 19:59, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

worldpowerliftingcongress.com/wpc-results/

Please look under 2017 Meets

2017 - WPC World Championships - RU 11/3-5/2017 - WPC Results

Under the tab, WPC Powerlifting Classic Raw, line 75, Pennington, David, Masters 50-54 (01.10.1966)/51

All DOB's are displayed Day.Month.Year

He lost weight during the competition and competed the next day to hold onto his world title in a lower weight category for benchpress only, which is under the tab - WPC Raw Benchpress line 112, this also shows DOB.

Thank you

Vpennington74 (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Can I ask if its necessary to list Dave's cause of death and the article from the newspaper. It's something that we wanted to keep private, but we weren't able to stop the reporter from being at the inquest. Vpennington74 (talk) 22:02, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Typically the answer is that if it reliably sourced and doesn't defame the user it is reported on. I'm not sure it is mandatory but it does help bolster the notability of your husbands profile especially the write up about his accomplishments. User:Ivanvector any thoughts? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:56, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Yane Sandanski

Hi Ivanvector, in relation with this comment, I will ask you to look again at this article about Yane Sandanski to make sure that there are already enough attempts to vandalize it and it may be semi-protected. In addition, the set of IP-s operating there, were warned enough to stop this but without result. Thank you in advance and greetings. Jingiby (talk) 07:29, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I did have another look and I agree, the user came back after a bit and kept up the same POV battle. I would not call the IP's edits vandalism, but they are definitely disruptive. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Jorge Masvidal page protection

Hello. The current issue has been discussed in talk pages but issues still persist. There is still constant vandalism to this page and that’s why it was protected twice previously. This page should be protected indefinitely as there is regular IP vandalism present. If it were protected indefinitely it would cause far less disruptive edits and there would be less need to try and reason with IP vandals. Gilbert.JW (talk) 19:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@Gilbert.JW: like I said, this seems to be a content dispute between NEDOCHAN and the IP editor, and they seem to have resolved it. We don't protect pages pre-emptively, and there does not seem to have been a resumption of vandalism since the last protection expired only a few days ago. If the issues persist then please file a new report, or ping me. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:13, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Working now.

Isn't it? Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 16:36, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Sure seems that way. Were you able to send any while blocked or just after it expired? Actually I was kind of wondering if those were queued somehow and just went through after the block expired, but I think you said yesterday that you didn't even have the button on your screen. Odd. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:28, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

After expiration. not before. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 18:34, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

That's intentional, if I understand correctly. Too many blocked/banned editors were harassing people by continually sending multiple "thanks" to their perceived enemies even after being permablocked, so they just took the ability away for all blocked editors. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:45, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, that's fair enough. I couldn't send a thanks. I can't remember who I wanted to thank, but it was probably a pointy thank you anyway. Only one mind you. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 19:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

The AI is so powerful that it predicts pointy thanks and will soon takeover the world, seed gray goo, etc. —PaleoNeonate – 07:39, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I guess I don't get it

Can you explain you RfPP decline in a little more detail? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:40, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello? Is this thing on? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Please unblock my English Wikipedia account Alex Neman

My English Wikipedia account Alex Neman have been blocked since 20 January 2020 due to edit warring on Suzuki Carry article, but extended to indefinitely since 23 January 2020 due to block evade using IP addresses. As an editor using 182.30.204.161 always or usually revert my edits due to my sockpuppetry, an editor using that IP address recommends that you as the admin must be appeal the block of my account. Please unblock my account Alex Neman to continue editing at English Wikipedia and talk to my user talkpage, as per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alex Neman/Archive#Comments by other users 9. Thank you. 43.252.74.193 (talk), 07.57, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: 43.252.74.193 has sockpuppeted many IPs and previously going as 114.142.169.18. 182.30.204.161 (talk) 08:00, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

This is considered block evasion as well. Log in from the account and use the {{Unblock}} template. --qedk (t 桜 c) 08:03, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

But my account's talk page access has been revoked by Dreamy Jazz as I talk to that user to request an unblock due to someone from Spain who use a Spanish IP address to revert my edits of Mazda CX-30 and Mazda Motor Indonesia and also email access revoked by Yamla. So please Ivanvector and QEDK to unrevoke talk page and email access to give you my account unblock request. 114.142.169.3 (talk) 08:18, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I am unrevoking your email access (under discussion) on the precondition that you will not edit the English Wikipedia from any IPs hereafter. You can send your appeal via Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee. Any further IP editing will result in your email access being removed. --qedk (t 桜 c) 08:32, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@QEDK: Well, just take a look at this and this. He can't keep up with the promises. 182.30.204.161 (talk) 01:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

• [4] EEng 09:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm legitimately confused

How did I personally attack anybody by saying IP users didn't know how Wikipedia works? (They generally don't, hence why they don't make accounts. And that IP has only made 3 contributions total, I wouldn't expect them to.) I was actually being dead serious. E.g. I put a template asking for a citation for a statement and the same IP user came back to remove said template and simply insert unsourced original research about the director. What I was saying was those who know Wikipedia policies would have put a reliable source there. How exactly is that mean-spirited? ⌚️ (talk) 19:32, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Deleting "heated tobacco product"

Hi. I'm trying to move "heat-not-burn product" to "heated tobacco product" but the latter is a redirect, so I think that's blocking me from being able to make this move. So I tried deleting "heated tobacco product" but wasn't able to. Can you help me with this? If it's useful, I've talked with docjames about this move and he concurs with it, the reason for the move is that "heated tobacco product" is the name used by the US FDA, US CDC, and WHO (e.g. https://www.who.int/tobacco/publications/prod_regulation/heated-tobacco-products/en/). "Heat not burn" is a potentially misleading marketing phrase because some of the products do burn some of the constituents. DrNicotiana (talk) 19:11, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi there. I unflagged the page only because there's a technical problem with your move, not because I disagree. I'm about to post at WP:AN about it. I'll ping you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:15, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

SPI: ARA SANTA FE

Hey Ivan can you help me, I'm trying to re-open this SPI to add Allegheny1453, user appears to follow familiar pattern. -ie [5] [6] [7] - I don't want make the same mistake i did last time. would apprecite any help you can give. Thanks - FOX 52 (talk) 01:00, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

@FOX 52: if you go to the SPI main page, expand the box near the top of the page that says "how to file an investigation", fill in the sockmaster's name (it's ARA SANTA FE), and follow the instructions, you shouldn't have any problems. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:01, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

OK got it, thanks very much - FOX 52 (talk) 19:15, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Similar cases

Informing you about this case since there were similar cases in past that you had closed. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 11:09, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Completing name change for "heated tobacco product"

Hi, Do you know how to do the proper consensus documentation and formalize the move of "heat not burn product" to "heated tobacco product"? It has been a week, and from my reading it looks like consensus has been reached. thanks. DrNicotiana (talk) 15:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I can, but there's a separate policy (WP:INVOLVED) that says that I should not, because I participated in the discussion. The request is listed in the backlog at WP:RMB, someone should be along shortly to complete the move. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:55, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 23, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

All content, links, and diffs from the original ARC and the latest ARC are being read into the evidence for this case.

The secondary mailing list is in use for this case: arbcom-en-b@wikimedia.org

For the Arbitration Committee, CThomas³ (talk) 05:58, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Blocked editor at another IP address

The editor you just blocked is back on his talk page and on mine as well, from another IP address, with the same kind of abuse. Is a range block called for? Sweetpool50 (talk) 10:58, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Random CU question

Hi Ivanvector, your recent comment on AN about SithJarJar666 reminded me of a question I've had in the past. I saw that your CU findings were "Technically Indistinguishable," but I've seen "Confirmed" used in other places - what exactly is the difference between those two results? creffett (talk) 17:51, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Generally varies depending on the checkuser. For me, I use "technically indistinguishable" when all details about two accounts' technical signatures (IP address, useragent, editing times, some other things we can look at) are identical, and the match cannot be explained by other factors like use of a public computer, very common devices, or a proxy service. It doesn't necessarily mean that the two accounts are definitely sockpuppets, there are a myriad of reasons why two accounts' technical info can appear the same, but it's certainly a factor along with analyzing the behaviour of the two accounts. If two accounts appear to be using exactly the same device but editing in very different ways, I'll include "behavioural evidence needs evaluation", and leave it to a clerk to compare the two accounts' edits with the knowledge that their connections are identical. And if I can see that two accounts are technically indistinguishable but I can see a reasonable explanation or there's other private info that explains why, then I won't use that result, I'll just be evasive and mysterious.

On the other hand, I use "confirmed" when I have no doubt that the two accounts are operated by the same person and being used in an abusive manner, in which case there's no reason for further investigation. Confirmed means "definitely sockpuppets" and checkusers won't use that result unless we're sure.

Of course findings can be challenged, most checkusers will try to explain as much as we can although we're limited by the local policy and several related policies. If you're concerned that checkuser is being used inappropriately you can ask the ombudsman commission to investigate.

Hope that helps! Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:56, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-Protecting Talk Pages, etc.

First, thank you for listening to an explanation that there isn't an absolute rule about unregistered editors. There are various aspects of disputes where I would prefer not to open a DRN case, but do not have a hard-and-fast rule. One situation has to do with a large number of registered editors, ten or more. I think that I once said that would be like attempting to herd 6 cats, 3 rabbits, 3 dogs of different breeds, a goat, and a llama.

Second, we haven't had a coordinator at DRN for maybe two years. Some of the coordinators were useless and were only hat-collecting anyway. One of the coordinators didn't do anything except nag the other volunteers about removing the Do Not Archive date when closing cases. (It would have been as easy to just remove it as to nag the other volunteers.)

Third, I am wary about the explanation that, for technical or personal reasons, they can't enable cookies on the device that they are using. It sounds like they are saying that they aren't supposed to be using the device. Last week I would have said to go to the public library or an Internet cafe. I am aware this week that the public libraries and Internet cafes are closed in many parts of the world. I am still wary of that explanation. The combination of my hesitancy about the cookies explanation and the statements by the other editors that they didn't think that it was time for moderated discussion were the reasons for closing the case, not one reason.

Fourth, I agree that the dispute has gotten to the point where it needs to be sent back to the arbitration committee.

Fifth, the one time that I was involved in semi-protecting a talk page, it was Cold fusion, which is pseudo-science. There is no specific law of physics that says it is impossible, but it is probably impossible, and the claims for it are fringe claims. I think I recall that the reason for the semi-protection of the talk page is that the unregistered editor(s) were doing something that violated talk page guidelines, and made discussion difficult, probably altering the comments of other editors, and illustrated why the talk page guidelines are in order. If a registered editor had been doing it, they would have been given a block for disruptive editing. Semi-protection was easier than a range block. I think that the IPs were coming from a country in Eastern Europe where a researcher was claiming to have done cold fusion. In any case, the issue is that the IPs were disruptively violating talk page guidelines and making discussion impossible. I don't think that is the problem with race and intelligence.

Robert McClenon (talk) 19:07, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello Ianvector, I'm posting this under the existing header that appears related: I've been thinking about this, including per my last comment at AE. I would be glad to be corrected on the following if my understanding is flawed.
Protecting pages is usually an administrator decision more than done over a consensus (consensus being replaced here by the previous protection log as well as recent page history). Protecting talk pages is also rare, usually in cases of obvious persistent disruption other than civil POV pushing socks. I consider this to be the likely reason jps went to AE in relation to R&I. Going at AN (other than for a close review, but the discussion was not closed yet then) would likely have resulted in no action, as the protecting admin action, despite seeing a community consensus (if any), would still be considered that particular admin's decision.
An option may be doing nothing (perhaps viewed as systemic WP technology and policy issues, unable to deal with the problem). Another may be asking at AN for the closure to be reviewed (not reopened but confirmed or reclosed by third party admin(s) per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE). I considered trying that but the page also suggests first discussing it with the closer.
Still, assuming someone went at AN, that the protection request was reclosed as fair consensus to protect, it may still result in non-action, the same as jps first going there, with the decision still left at the discretion of an individual admin, who may not take the risk.
There seems to have been precedent in relation to abortion for talk page protections (see ArtifexMayhem's entry and specifically this and result at WP:ARBAB#IP editing prohibited (temporary measure) and WP:ARBAB#Modified by motion, allowing uninvolved admins to restore protection at their discretion when expired). It seems that such motion is absent from WP:ARBR&I. Would WP:ARCA therefore be where to proceed next? Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 20:04, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Илија Гуск

Some discussion on my talk page User talk:MilborneOne#Soko J-22 Orao related to User:Илија Гуск being a sockpuppet of User:Karen Kho master is User:VJ-Yugo. As you have had dealing with VJ_Yugo socks just looking for a second opinion, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 11:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thanks for all your help on COVID19 articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:23, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2021

This page was created because I pressed edit after you had moved the page... Invalid^OS_talk 00:21, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

No problem, but I have deleted it. There is only room for so much nonsense. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:23, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coronavirus disease 2019

Hello I. Would you please add a set of <noinclude></noinclude> tags to this protection template. AFDs always transclude to other pages. Several of those are already in Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates and more will be added and they will remain there until several hours after the expiration expires. If you are away from WikiP maybe one of your talk page watchers could do this. Any help will be appreciated. MarnetteD|Talk 02:17, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Can you please delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coronavirus disease 2019? -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email})

@MarnetteD and KAP03: responding to you both at once since your questions are related. The page was already deleted before I saw your messages, so I think it's all tied up. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:22, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Yep things are back to normal n my end. Stay safe and well I. MarnetteD|Talk 15:24, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2020).

Administrator changes

Cabayi • Lee Vilenski

Boing! said Zebedee

Jonny-mt • MarkGallagher • PeaceNT

Money emoji → Moneytrees

Bureaucrat changes

SilkTork • WereSpielChequers

CheckUser changes

NativeForeigner

Oversight changes

Someguy1221

Daniel Case

Guideline and policy news

• There is an ongoing request for comment to streamline the source deprecation and blacklisting process.

Technical news

• There is a plan for new requirements for user signatures. You can give feedback.

Arbitration

• Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold a Arbcom RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. A draft RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC (Draft) and not open to comments from the community yet. Interested editors can comment on the RfC itself on its talk page.

Miscellaneous

• The WMF has begun a pilot report of the pages most visited through various social media platforms to help with anti-vandalism and anti-disinformation efforts. The report is updated daily and will be available through the end of May.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy notification

Hi, Ivanvector. I am a party to the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine; I wanted to let you know that I mentioned you in this section of my evidence. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:14, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice! I don't think I have anything to add but looks like I have time to think about it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:23, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Just wanted you to know; unwatching your page now, so ping me if feedback needed. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:41, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Range block stuff

Hi Ivan, since you appear to be an experienced rangeblocker, could I please trouble you to look at the proposal suggested by Ravensfire here on my talk page? They seem reasonable... going through a bunch of those ranges' edits, I think it's mostly the disruptive Hong Kong editor that we've been dealing with for so long. Just want to get a second opinion as to whether it seems a good idea to block those ranges. Thanks in advance.

Unrelated to that, I saw your recent edit at Andhra Pradesh Medtech Zone Limited. I've asked Berean Hunter to take a look, because something fishy in the way of potential undisclosed paid editing is going on, particularly when I see this SPA spring up to restore that wall of promotional garbage. Just wanted to keep you in the loop. Thanks and regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, we're already talking about it from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Invisibelibrarian. I'll have a look at your rangeblock. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:DUCK

Hi.mariam (talk · contribs)

WP:DUCK of site-banned sockmaster Meganesia. See the revision history of this[8] page. They also edits the sokmaster's obscure pet articles like this[9] and this [10] Puduḫepa 16:33, 22 April 2020 (UTC) FYI: The sockmaster's IP sock: [11]

His another sock[12]. Puduḫepa 16:27, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Puduḫepa: it's very difficult to run investigations from my talk page. Please file a report at WP:SPI. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:32, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

OK, thank you. I noticed that you are active at the time and thus, i wanted to raise it here to get a quick feedback. Will file a SPI. Thank you. Puduḫepa 16:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Ivan I looked real quick at Maryam given the Assyrian stuff, which is of course severely disruptive, but found nothing (except for geolocation), and I don't see a good reason for why that other account should have anything to do with it. Puduḫepa, you need to explain this a bit better at the SPI. Drmies (talk) 16:39, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Drmies will do. The content was completely written by the site-banned LTA and along with Hakkari (and related pages), this page is their top-edited page. His ip socks edit-warred to restore the sock's edit on the same page before. Berean Hunter blocked his numerous ip socks edit-warring to restore his deleted edits on various pages (such as this[13] one) and had to semi-protect the page due to his edit-wars via his ip socks - see the revision history. Puduḫepa 16:44, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

All the more reason this should be documented in a proper SPI report. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

OK, will take this to the SPI. As i said above, i reported it here to get a quick feedback. Puduḫepa 16:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Follow-up question

Hey there, re: this, I had a follow-up question. You said "Anon-only, in any case." Can you please clarify what you meant by that? Did you mean not to tick the box that prevents people with accounts from editing from this IP range? Thanks, sorry if it's a dumb question. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:53, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: sorry for the jargon, but yes, that's what I meant. You'll see in the block log that it has the "anon. only" flag, like this one. An IP block where accounts are also blocked doesn't have that flag, like this one. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 07:01, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Roxy the dog

Hello, I see that you have blocked this user in the past for edit warring. You may be interested in their personal attack linked here. This was for the "crime" of asking Roxy not to remove talk page material in which said user was pinged. It is especially rich given his "warning" to me here for supposedly making "personal attacks," in this edit. I can provide lots of other evidence of this user's incivility. Myself and (I'm sure) User:Arcturus are happy to stand behind our constructive contributions to the project. The kind of bullying and condescension I see on a regular basis from Roxy makes it no wonder to me that so many constructive editors leave Wikipedia. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 04:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

...and, it appears you were far from the first administrator to see a problem with Roxy's editing. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 04:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog: this woke me up at 2am on a night I was already having trouble sleeping, and several keys on my "new" keyboard are not working, so I'm more aggravated than usual but I'm still not about to block someone for an outburst that happened three days ago. But you and I both know there are several admins who would. Maybe you could consider not signing your own warrant?

@HappyWanderer15: Wikipedia documents information as it appears in reliable independent sources, not individual editors' opinions. You'll find that when you're asked to provide such sources to back up your proposal you instead respond by alleging everyone involved is part of a grand offline conspiracy (indeed a personal attack) you'll be met with hostility. Going after your opponents in this manner is unseemly, and if you keep all of this up you'll quickly find yourself banned from the topic. However, if you think you're being treated unfairly, you can try the fringe theories noticeboard.

-- Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 06:52, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ivan, may I suggest that you turn your computer off when trying to sleep, that way you wont get bothered by nonsense like this. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 06:55, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Good advice but if not this then it would've been some auto-notification on my work email, which was probably a bad choice to have coming to my phone anyway. Also proably wouldn't help a lot wth my kyboard woes. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 07:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2020).

Administrator changes

Gnangarra • Kaisershatner • Malcolmxl5

CheckUser changes

Callanecc

Oversight changes

HJ Mitchell

Guideline and policy news

• Discretionary sanctions have been authorized for all pages and edits related to COVID-19, to be logged at WP:GS/COVID19.
• Following a recent discussion on Meta-Wiki, the edit filter maintainer global group has been created.
• A request for comment has been proposed to create a new main page editor usergroup.
• A request for comment has been proposed to make the bureaucrat activity requirements more strict.

Technical news

• The Editing team has been working on the talk pages project. You can review the proposed design and share your thoughts on the talk page.
• Enterprisey created a script that will show a link to the proper Special:Undelete page when viewing a since-deleted revision, see User:Enterprisey/link-deleted-revs.

Miscellaneous

• A request for comment closed with consensus to create a Village Pump-style page for communication with the Wikimedia Foundation.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Note re messsages

Hi there. I see that you are an admin? could you please take a look at my last few interactions at WP:Village pump (proposals), and let me know what you think of the colloquy there? I could use some insights and input from an uninvolved admin. I appreciate your help. thanks!! you can also check my contribs history for the last 4-6 weeks, if you find that helpful or informative at all. I appreciate any help or insights. thank you in advance!!! please ping me if you reply. thanks!! ---Sm8900★ 🌎 05:36, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#Anti-vax_campaign

I think since 2018 our community ban policy does not allow for snow closure. I personally do not see a IAR justification in the present circumstances given the discussion that lead to our current wording and would ask you to reverse so that it could be open for a minimum of 24 hours. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Barkeep49: I didn't realize we had a "no WP:SNOW" carve-out in the policy, but you're absolutely right, and I'm sorry I didn't see this message until this morning. I've reverted my close and added a note about the situation. In future, if you see something an admin has done that's unambiguously wrong, you should feel comfortable to just undo it and leave them a note. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks for doing that. I debated just reverting myself but decided to ask instead as a way to minimize drama. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Sigh

Hi Ivanvector, Hope all is well,
Just wanted to ask if you spent 2 hours of your life improving and sourcing an article would you expect this reply? (FWIW I did say this after which makes me as bad as them however no one deserves that sort of response after hours of improving/citing an article no one does),
FWIW I did have the article watchlisted for years although I never edited it as I completely forgot to source it back then,
If I'm being blatantly honest their reply makes me simply want to leave and not return, I may not be the best article improver in the world but I try my damned hardest and as I said no one deserves to be spoken to in that way,
Hope you're safe and well, Take care, –Davey2010^Talk 13:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Content deleted on one BLP, same stuff restored on another BLP?

Hi there,

Re your edit here removing 'stuff' from the Nathalie Lawhead BLP, the same 'stuff' was deleted by an IP then restored on the Jeremy Soule page just on 18 May.

I suppose it should go away again? Just bringing it to your attention. Regards, 220 of ^Borg 10:16, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I see now you are probably aware of the issue per Talk:Jeremy_Soule#Allegations_2.0 220 of ^Borg 11:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting the speedy deletion I placed

I wasn't at all sure if a redirect or a speedy deletion would be more appropriate in that case. Thanks for the correction! Mcampany (talk) 20:50, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Either way would have been fine. I figured if anyone is looking for LGBTQ+ films by women they won't be disappointed seeing a list of LGBT films by women. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Problems with user Hh11122

Hi, user Hh11122 is vandalizing the article New Left (Croatia) [14][15][16]. It could be the same person as 93.138.154.254 whom you have blocked recently or just another vandal. Can you please look it up and stop him. Thanks in advance. --Tuvixer (talk) 15:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@Tuvixer: I don't think this is the same person that was blocked yesterday, but they do have a set of sockpuppets all their own. All are now blocked. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:49, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Ayurveda

Don't get confused between edit and move

{{reply to|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 20:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Ayurveda

Did you mean to fully edit protect Ayurveda indefinitely, and only move protect it for two days? --I dream of horses (talk page) (Contribs) Remember to notify me after replying off my talk page. 20:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

It's all part of a secret exploit that allows non-admins to move pages that have been fully-protected from editing and... oops, I think I've spoken too much! —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 20:49, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Actually I didn't mean to move protect it at all, I didn't see a reason to. I must've done something in Twinkle that made that field revert back to a default. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 01:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Snark?

Sorry, was that directed at me? I'm confused. El_C 16:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

No, that was self-referential, in context of the past day or so. You've been nothing but helpful here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying. I appreciate that. Regards, El_C 16:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Social democracy

Hi, could you please check Social democracy and both HoboKenobi47 and DongxingJiang? They have been disruptive (HoboKenobi47 and DongxingJiang here, here and here). I could be wrong, but they may be the sockpuppeters of someone (my guess is Symes2017, SmalforaGiant et al) as the few edits they did may have been a continuation of some user or IP who was blocked; and Symes2017, SmalforaGiant et al edit warred and use sockpuppets to evade the block at Social democracy and Democratic socialism. The similar edit patterns, including not only not listening to me by take it to the talk page instead of edit warring (same behavior) but even literally reverting back to Symes2017's favourite version (very suspicious in my view) and here the usual pattern to change/edit quotes when that is exactly the way the quote is written. I do not know whether this warrants some investigation, but even if it is not a sockpuppeter, DongxingJiang edit warred and reverted more than three times, despite being reverted by two users and not listening to my pleas to take it to talk page and linking the relevant guidelines (again, I assumed good faith and opened a discussion on the talk page) and thus may risk getting blocked for edit warring anyway. I hope you can keep an eye on that because I probably will not be able to edit much until Monday. Thank you.--Davide King (talk) 05:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I synthesized disparate sources to suggest a conclusion the sources do not state

Hi. Please explain how that sentence misrepresents the sources given and synthesizes disparate sources to suggest a conclusion the sources do not state? And I'm supposed to be "the Amateur" since I actually was the only person saying something other than nonsense? And those objecting to this sentence because of totally unrelated one-drop rule and race denialism stuff were "the Astronomer"?

• Sentence: "Some research suggest that fears of white extinction are provoked by demographic shifts, since the white population is in decline in the US and Europe".
• psmag: "New research finds that such fears are provoked by demographic shifts" [17];
• guardian: "Where America goes, Europe follows 30 years later. There is a potential for whites to become a minority in some European countries"[18];
• powersearch: "In the United States, the white share of the population is declining" [19].

No, it's not going to end this way. Consensus might be against me and there is a high possibility that I give up; but I won't let this ugly record of "synthesizing" and "misinterpretation" remain in place. To me, "Find me a citation that says it's not made of green cheese" is closest to your arguments, not mine (Though I could actually provide more citations if you like). MS 会話 18:05, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• I'm not rehashing this argument with you here. You spent an entire month failing to develop consensus for your edit and you're refusing to drop it. You've already been warned about discretionary sanctions for American politics (WP:ARBAP2) topics, the next step is being banned from the topic. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:14, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Just for the record, Ms96, that isn't a way to present sources: quoting them out of context, without linking to the context, is not on. I've spent some time in that first reference you refer to, and it doesn't at all say what you make it say here.

Also, insisting that I actually was the only person saying something other than nonsense never ends well in WP discussions even when true which, in this case, it is not. Newimpartial (talk) 18:18, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Spending my entire life failing to develop consensus for my edit and refusing to drop the stick is not against WP guidelines. Your answer is a clear sign that I DID NOT SYNTHESIZE OR MISREPRESENT ANYTHING and all I want now is that you delete that part of your comment in the talk page saying "it misrepresents the sources given, synthesizes disparate sources to suggest a conclusion the sources do not state".

Newimpartial [20] exactly under the title, exactly above "TOM JACOBSJUN 3, 2019": "New research finds that such fears are provoked by demographic shifts, and in turn prompt stronger support for conservative policy positions". Just ctrl+F it. Please verify if you find it. Your second argument is totally correct, I apologize.MS 会話 18:39, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

The thing is that the journalistic source is citing a study (by Bai and Federico), which does not at all support the point "summarized". A lower-quality source cannot be cited as evidence against the higher-quality source which is its sole basis for making the statement. Newimpartial (talk) 20:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Please see ....

User:Smallbones/Proposed commercial editing policy

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Juno Dawson edit war

I agree that there has been edit warring here, but I cannot see the relevance of WP:BLPREMOVE. Can you explain? Thanks. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 13:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I would be really grateful if you could reply to my question above. Thanks. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:21, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@SamuelTheGhost: WP:BLPREMOVE refers to the exemption for removing such content, but perhaps I should have referred to WP:BLPSOURCE, which reads "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion" (emphasis in original). If you can't see why repeatedly re-adding a transgender person's deadname after being repeatedly asked to stop and discuss the matter is not only disruptive but also horrifically offensive, there's nothing I can explain here that will help; you should not edit these articles. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply and for drawing my attention to WP:BLPSOURCE and WP:DEADNAME. I am in total agreement with those policies. The material you removed was not "unsourced or poorly sourced"; it was clearly fully sourced as is evident if you just look at it; every occurrence of the name "James" is closely followed by a supporting source. I did attempt to discuss the matter; I was the one who took it to the talk page. Two other editors persisted in their opposition without considering my arguments, but I can see why my edit record can be seen as disruptive and I should have been more patient.

However I am amazed at your description of my edits as "horrifically offensive". All I have been trying to do is to introduce the harmless information that Juno Dawson's first seven books were originally published under her birth name of James Dawson. I cannot see how this is even slightly offensive to anyone, and if you genuinely think it is horrifically offensive I really cannot see how I should advise you.

More to the point, there is no way in which the substance of my edits has been in breach of Wikipedia policy. WP:DEADNAME gives explicit advice only about the usage of names in the lead. The assumption there is that early forms of names will be used when appropriate, without any taboo or imposed preference, and that is how it should be. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 13:28, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, deadnaming is an offensive practice, it's used to denigrate the identities of transgender individuals and refuse them their personhood, and I do not apologize for my use of the "horrific" qualifier. However let me offer that I'm referring to the content of your edit, not you personally: I'm sure you meant no offense, had I thought otherwise you would not still be editing. It's because information like this is so contentious that it is critically important to discuss and obtain consensus for a proposed edit of this sort before inserting it into a biography. None of our policies say it is forbidden, but it must be analyzed and treated with proper respect and due weight. If you are discussing the edit and you find that the editors on the talk page are being unreasonable you can try posting at the BLP noticeboard. But edit warring over it is a quick way to find yourself blocked, and we are especially strict about this when it comes to BLPs. As much as I'm assuming good faith on your part, my warning was as strongly worded as it was because you never know who you're dealing with on this website, and some people really are just out to cause offense or make our articles reflect their personal beliefs. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:27, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply and for drawing my attention to WP:BLPN and WP:UNDUE, which are interesting and helpful. You say that "information like this ... must be analyzed ..." so let's do so a little. Let us clarify that when writing about name changes we need to distinguish between references to the situation before the change and those after it. Let's call them the past and the present, with corresponding old and new names.

Using the old name when discussing the present is likely to be annoying and perhaps insulting. We don't do it when writing in wikipedia's voice because we must adopt a wp:npov. When writing about the past, however, our first aim is clarity and this will often require the use of the old name, or perhaps both in conjunction. People change their names for a variety of reasons, and should not have a problem with references to their own past. A need to deny or distort one's past is not characteristic of people who are are sane and honest, and to assume that this is what they want or need is indeed to "refuse them their personhood".

In practice we need to keep a proper balance in our references and to follow wikipedia guidance notes, such as this, from WP:UNDUE: "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." Currently the Juno Dawson article, which I dare not edit, has no references whatever to "James Dawson" in its own text although there are many in its sources. Could I be forgiven for supposing that other editors are motivated more by their obsessive need to remove "deadnames" rather than a desire to improve the article itself? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:15, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello Ivanvector. Just mentioning that there has been repeated attempts by @SamuelTheGhost to continue to reverse edits removing Juno Dawson's deadname including an edit on 21:33, 26 June 2020‎ that included them stating as the reason 'What you call "deadnaming" I call "lying"'. They seem to be doing it very obsessively and going against the style guide and as a trans user who hasn't edited much at all and doesn't understand the system much I would appreciate if you could help with the situation EditorAtLarge2021 (talk) 23:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Re: SPI

Wasn't sure if non-SPI clerk admins could request CU directly on cases, but will make note! -- ferret (talk) 14:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

You bet! Anyone can request, it's up to a clerk to endorse a request, and CUs have the final call anyway. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Whoops, I might have been thinking of Endorse then. -- ferret (talk) 15:01, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

This case is still going on with the same spam, Jan Reforzado. Is a range block possible? -- ferret (talk) 16:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Doing what we can. I'd have more info but you don't have email enabled and I'd rather not discuss here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Am not sure when / why I disabled it, but have re-enabled email for the time being until I remember why :) -- ferret (talk) 16:58, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:RFPU request for unprotecting 777 Charlie

Hi Ivanvector, your input would be welcome at WP:RFPU. Thanks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Soibangla

Good close, well done. Guy (help!) 19:57, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

== 777 charlie moved to draftspace

Hi Ivanvector, your input would help in resolving the issue.

Thank you.

Playlikeastar (talk) 03:57, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Help regarding a SPI case

Hi, Ivanvector I would like to request help regarding Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lying fla. Thank you ~ Amkgp 💬 12:04, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Imputation of tag-bombing a blocked user

Your imputation that I was tag-bombing a blocked user is unfounded. The time frame of their edits, straight out of a previous week-long block, was within a span of just 43 minutes; I intervened 20 minutes in. My last warning to them was only a minute after their final edit and several minutes before you imposed the block. I then made several further reversions of their edits but, having seen the block, gave no further warnings. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

@Mutt Lunker: my apologies, I failed to assume good faith. I had already blocked the user based on an investigation elsewhere, and only when I went to the page to leave a block notice did I see that you had rapidly (in the span of 17 minutes) left four templated warnings, including one which was a duplicate. You had stopped more than an hour prior to my revert of your notices, but I miscalculated the time difference and thought you were still in the middle of it. That's my own incompetence, and I should not have addressed you so aggressively even if I had been correct. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:40, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

No worries. (FWIW, none of the warnings were quite the same and the 4th was a swap for the 3rd one, which I deleted, "disruptive" being more apposite than "vandalism".) It didn't surprise me in the least to find out they were a known sock; disruptive as they were the competency looked too high for a newbie. All the best. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

2600:1012:b150:9c4d:d8a9:d1fd:a0e6:46ec

Could we please get an immediate block on user:2600:1012:b150:9c4d:d8a9:d1fd:a0e6:46ec. She clearly will not stop until blocked. CLCStudent (talk) 13:33, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Blocked. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:34, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Trouted

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: listing WikidPad as a biographical AFD. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:35, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Communist Party of China

Hi Ivanvector,
I am a non-admin closer of Talk:Communist Party of China#Requested move 16 July 2020. Can you please restore the previous page protection? — YoungForever^(talk) 20:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@YoungForever: looks like El C beat me to it. ¡Gracias! Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia proposals request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:List of active coal-fired power stations in Turkey on a "Wikipedia proposals" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 06:31, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Cut and past move from deleted article?

Hi Ivan, could you help me? I have a strong feeling that the recently created Draft:Dos Corazones is a somehow recovered version of the deleted article Dos Corazones. Is that something you could check, and possibly merge their edit history? Thanks! BOVINEBOY2008 14:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Yep, it definitely is, and was also created by a sockpuppet. Rather than merge I have deleted it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:00, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for looking into it! BOVINEBOY2008 23:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Wackamole time

As suspected we have yet another sock of 2TigerBW - is it ok to message them here or should I place them elsewhere? -----Snowded ^TALK 16:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Another just popped up - looks like trying to do better but still an identical pattern. I suspect this will go on for a bit -----Snowded ^TALK 04:57, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

The latest to fit the bill? Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@Snowded and Mutt Lunker: please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/2TigerBW. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Time for a range block? Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:42, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Abbieend3. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:57, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Notice of ANI that mentions you in passing

Greetings, FYI I filed a request at WP:ANI titled "CIR-based community-imposed site ban re: RTG". In providing a basis for my request I mentioned you and your prior dealings with this editor. Your input at ANI is optional, i.e., invited but not specifically requested. Thanks for reading. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:58, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Being accused of being a sockpuppet

Hi, Ivanvector, I am a Wikipedian and am being accused of being a sockpuppet of Xayahrainie43. This user is a sockpuppet operator and his original account has already been blocked. However, people think that my activity is similar to that of him and his sockpuppets and think I am one of his sockpuppets. I am not. Since you're a checkuser, I'm notifying you. Please check the current sockpuppet investigation (not the archived one) of this user for more details. (More details on the sockpuppet investigation page.) Also, since you're a checkuser, you should be able to see my IP address. Thank you. Friend505 (talk) 13:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Sock or at least DE

Hello, back in October 2019 you blocked an editor who was changing EngVar on pages even after clear explanation of the policy. It appears this editor is back, as a sock (see this discussion for further details, in particular the recent additions). Today he has moved on to another page, even after acknowledging the explanation of the policy on his talk page. Whether or not this is a sock, the editor has become disruptive as he continues to apply his personal view of the MOS:TIES policy. Thank you, Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 14:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@Laszlo Panaflex: please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HughEverPulsatingBrainThatRulesFromTheCentreOfTheUltraworld in a few minutes. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again – and such prompt service, wow! Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 15:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Help to improve the article

Hi Ivanvector! I saw that the page Ingush people has some problems with the content and with the edit war. I want to improve this page and wanted to ask you for help. I think I can be sure of your objectivity. Will you help me? — Adam-Yourist (talk) 22:47, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Adam-Yourist. The page is semi-protected because of a persistent disruptive user creating many accounts to edit the page, which is against our multiple accounts policy. As long as you're not going to try to make the same edits as that user, you are able to edit the article yourself even though it is currently protected. If you need help, you can ask on the article's talk page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Demolition Man (film)

How long do you plan to lock the article for Demolition Man? A week, a month, indefinitely? Unfortunately unlike user blocks, page locks do not (seem to) indicate how long they will last.

If you look at the edit History you will see that it was locked and left that way apparently for years. It was only recently unlocked and I've worked extensively since then to to improve it. The disruptive edits by the anonymous editor who wouldn't even follow the WP:SIMPLE rules and explain his changes or discuss on the talk page, were mildly irritating but not enough for me to try and have him banned or to have the article locked (preventing me from improving it).

On the basis that Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia that anyone can edit I would much prefer if the article could be protected but allow flagged edits, if possible. But please please please don't lock the article indefinitely again. -- 109.79.65.37 (talk) 13:10, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Nevermind, I checked again. Apparently the lock is only until August 12. You might need to lock it for another week or two after that but we will see. Maybe I can find more sources in the meantime. -- 109.79.65.37 (talk) 13:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@109.79.65.37: Sorry for the inconvenience. I think you already figured it out but I semi-protected the article for 2 days to stifle further edit-warring. You can propose changes on the talk page in the meantime, and you can use {{edit semiprotected}} to get the attention of users who can edit the article while it is protected. If disruptive editing continues after protection expires then another admin may try something else, like pending changes or blocking the users involved. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:11, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

The other user is belatedly making an effort to discuss. Thanks. -- 109.78.209.246 (talk) 22:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)