User talk:Ivanvector/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

The original joke

the original joke was from Scotland, and said "Why do people write Fuck the Pope on toilet walls? Because they can't be bothered to write "Fuck the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland". How people cannot see that as a joke, especially when US language does not say "toilet" but "bathroom" or whatever, just totally defeats me, and I deliberately left it as "toilet", I did choose whether to say "bathroom" or whatever. It is ridiculous, really. We do have General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. I am only checking via this comment, but I imagine we have an article on Fuck the Pope as well. Si Trew (talk) 16:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, we don't have an article on Fuck the Pope. We probably should, if I can get RS for it. One of the ones I listed at RfD was about a chap in Czechoslovakia that does everything wrong, what we woud call an Irish joke or you would call a Newfie joke, that kind of thing. I was hoping to link them together but thought better of it, while this discussion is open. Si Trew (talk) 16:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Strangely, in my opinion Irish joke redirects to Ethnic joke but Newfie joke redirects to Canadian humour. That's a bit odd don't you think? At least the Irish have a sense of humour *(ducks)*. One of my favourites is Stephen Leacock, especially his "Boarding-House Geometry" ("a pie may be reproduced any number of times"), but I love his little twisty short stories too. At least on a par with O. Henry, I would say better. O. Henry lets you down with a bump, but Leacock lifts you up with a light, in the final twist. His English is so elegant as well. Si Trew (talk) 16:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

RfA Question

Your RfA question made me so angry. I wanted to scream at this hypothetical Ambecardabi person.--v/r - TP 19:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I was just going to do the UAA question, but then I had another coffee. ... Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

ANI

I had the feeling that was Nsmutte again. Glad to see they confirmed my suspicions. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I had a feeling, but I've been giving people side-eye all week about jumping to sockpuppetry conclusions. Ducks gonna quack. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank-you

Thank-you for the Advice. I was talking about the Chazz Miller page, I will edit this to make it better.

I really want to make that page nice for the people of Detroit.   I will definitely check out, 

WikiProject Michigan/Detroit|WikiProject Detroit. I contacted the director of the charles h wright museum in detroit and Chazz Miller is a notable person and he started the Mural Movement in Detroit, but that aside Eliza Howell Park How do I prove that Chazz is notable? Do I have to create a page for his Non profits, Artist Village and Detroit Public Art Workz to give him validity?

This is all a learning experience. Sorry for the annoying errors.Chickee 18:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThatChickOverThere (talk • contribs)

Another thank you from me. I plan to consider all of your advice and not edit for at least 48 more hours to fully absorb it. I have positive feelings towards you but cannot say that is true about Yamla, who wrote some very threatening words. There should be an interaction ban between Yamla and me but I doubt Yamla would ever follow that. That's too bad for Wikipedia civility. Thanks again. April Fools Day After (talk) 02:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

April 2017

I just want to point that almost all of the warnings on my talk page are from Magnolia677. Anyway, thanks for solving the case, I hope something like that doesn't happen again to me. Bloomdoom2 (talk) 14:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Canadian

I saw in the block log some recent blocks. One of the blocks was made by you. There's too much to do in Wikipedia but what caught my eye was that you are a Canuck! Otherwise, I'd say nothing. It is unclear to me your decision that this April user is "not here to contribute to the encyclopedia". Consider mentorship or at least an explanation and way for this person to do remediation. Vanguard10 (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Vanguard10, thanks for your note, I appreciate you bringing up your concerns here. The user you're referring to made two disruptive edits at Talk:Donald Trump, one which clearly violated our biographies of living persons policy, and they were warned to stop. Instead, they tried to report the user who removed their edits to an administrative noticeboard. In my opinion, their behaviour shows that they're not here to contribute to the encyclopedia, and they ignored adequate warnings to stop before I blocked them. They did appeal, and another administrator agreed that they should remain blocked. You can raise this at the administrators' noticeboard if you'd like to pursue further, but my best advice is to not worry too much about it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Ivanvector! Thanks for your kind response. As far as "you can raise this at the WP:AN", that's far too confrontation to do when Canucks are supposed to be polite! I usually try to understand another person's perspective. When doing this, there was clearly not a meeting of minds between you and April.

You said they violated BLP and "were warned to stop." However, April probably didn't see any warning because all I see is a warning from Tony on April's user talk page saying to stop disrupting (with no explanation on what was disruptive) and clearly no BLP mention, which was your reason for blocking. Tony also removed both of April's Talk:Donald Trump edits, which is very easy to interpret as aggression and should usually not be done.

I cannot see any BLP so please educate me. I see a mention of Abu Ivanka, but that was all over the news and a positive news story about a name of respect used in the Arab world (google the term). So, once again, I write not to campaign for an unblock but merely that I see quite a bit of miscommunication, probably no BLP, no clear warning, and not a situation where everyone is polite and thoughtful. I hope that Wikipedia becomes more of a thoughtful and polite place, which can only happen if we do our parts and follow such goal. Can you fix this situation? Vanguard10 (talk) 02:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not my intention to be impolite with you, only to point you in the right direction if you wanted to ask other users about this. I've posted there now with an explanation of the situation, because you might be right and I'd like other users to comment. You're welcome to add anything there that you think I might have missed or might be important to the discussion. I'm also going to leave a note on your talk page: the note itself isn't meant to be threatening, but it's required by policy when making a post at that noticeboard that mentions a user. Thanks again. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 10:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Here's my take on the April user. From this, I learned about BLP. That will be a long term lesson from interacting with a fellow Canuck. However, I have also looked at the definition of sock. Samswik and April do not have overlapping edits (one ends in February and the other doesn't begin until 6 weeks later) nor do they have overlapping interests. April seems like a child and Samswik seems like a movie buff. So, I do not think they meet the definition. Maybe Samswik is the older sibling of April? (that is purely speculation when trying to consolidate all information and assuming the checkuser is correct). I believe Wikipedia culture is too fixated on socks and reasoning often goes out of the window the moment the thought of socks comes up. Since April is likely a child, this could be quite traumatic. Mentorship of some sorts may be more appropriate for proper child development or at least some positive words of encouragement.

My involvement in this whole matter has been research into terminology, like BLP, etc. Therefore, I make no recommendations as far as this specific user, merely that some of the terminology used appears to be inappropriate and do not meet the criteria (sock, BLP, etc.). Furthermore, I am not asking you to do anything, although some words of encouragement from you to April may be beneficial for a child. Vanguard10 (talk) 06:08, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately there's not a lot I can do about it at this point. The user is blocked based on technical evidence, which is private. Only a very small number of users who sign a disclosure with the Wikimedia Foundation are allowed access to the CheckUser tool which allows them to look up private technical information about an account's connection to our servers. I don't have access to it but Bbb23 does, and he found evidence of a connection and blocked both accounts. Administrators (like me) aren't allowed to overturn a CheckUser block under any circumstances. Both of the accounts were warned about discretionary sanctions for disruptive editing on American politics articles (like Donald Trump), and making a new account to avoid scrutiny from past editing is explicitly forbidden, so based on the info that's available to me it does look like this was a good block. The user can appeal if they would like. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I did not ask for the user to be unblocked because my concern is about definitions, not a specific block. I am concerned that there is no evidence that there was a "new account to avoid scrutiny". Neither account edited much about Trump, which is a very high traffic article. April did not get into fights about Trump. Even if they are the same person, it could be a lost password, a younger sibling or some other explanation that doesn't meet the true definition of sock. This would be consistent with the checkuser's findings and with opposing behavioural evidence.

Besides definitions, I am more concerned with the mental well being of a child. April is clearly a child, something someone else also noted. There is a risk of suicide, albeit unknown how big a risk. I know you are limited in questioning a checkuser because they are much higher ranked than you, which is why I am not asking for unblocking. I am the last person who would suggest unblock, but I am the first person to want the face of Wikipedia to be compassionate, not arbitrary, and very transparent. I have enough life experiences to see gross unfairness happen even though it's not apparent on first glance, to see anguish, and even suicide (not Amanda Todd, a well known teen suicide in BC a few years ago, but a friend of mine when I was in my 20's). Maybe it is necessary for there to be an ombudsman that works with checkusers to try to make blocks more human?

Perhaps all this discussion is because Canadians are polite and considerate, eh? (ha, ha, I don't really say "eh", I don't think, eh?)Vanguard10 (talk) 03:16, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

SPI

Thank you for having a look at this SPI. I have added new information to it which I feel strongly demonstrates a link between these two editors. Many of us work hard to keep the music articles free of vandalism and original research, and Xboxmanwar undermined the hard work of many editors. I sincerely appreciate you having a look at this. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Dead sockpuppet case reopening

Is it okay if I can reopen a sockpuppet case? I've found a sockpuppet of Lycoperdon named Nochyyy. I bringning this to attention because the user makes edits related to the current Yemeni Civil War, removing North Korea and Russia as supporters and all of his other edits only in areas pertaining to Middle Eastern conflicts. Thanks. RainbowSilver (talk) 14:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi there RainbowSilver, thanks for your question. In this case you would just be opening a new case/report, which is fine. Navigate to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations and find the bar above the current case list which reads "How to open an investigation". Enter Lycoperdon in the "sockmaster's username" box and click submit, and the form will guide you through the process. You will be able to preview your work before saving your report. It may take a few days for a clerk to review your report. If you have any questions let us know. Cheers. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:10, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Block

Hello, you have blocked Sher E Punjab - Maharaja Ranjit Singh. However, the page has been created as Sher-e-Punjab: Maharaja Ranjit Singh. Is it still banned? If the ban has lifted, please redirect the banned title to this link. Thanks. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 19:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Capankajsmilyo: thanks for your note. In terms of being recreated, I think the page is okay. In my opinion the creator of the new page is not obviously a sockpuppet, and that was the reason for the page having been deleted before. I will remove protection from Sher E Punjab - Maharaja Ranjit Singh so that you can create a redirect if you would like. If you need help please let me know. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

... on second thought, I've requested another check. It's suspicious. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

That one favorite person?

I'm about to step out in RL, but was wondering ... does Nicktoonspl15 look like a sock of Fangs to you? It's making my sock radar go haywire it's so off the charts. Steel1943 (talk) 22:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Steel1943: that's an impressive level of coincidence, yes. I pulled together an SPI and endorsed for a CU check. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

...Unrelated. Didn't expect that at all. Steel1943 (talk) 01:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) They could've just bought a new machine and moved house, eh. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 13:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I doubt it with this master. It's a head-scratcher, anyway. Bbb23 closed it pretty quickly, I think we should take that as a sign we're way off the mark here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Good thinking. --Bbb23 (talk) 13:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Odd redirects, look redundant to me

Sorry, gotta run--[1]. Drmies (talk) 21:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: I'd say some of them are silly, but only maybe a handful are possibly problematic. I'll RfD some. My general view on redirects is that clutter is irrelevant: if a user genuinely feels that a redirect will be useful then that's good enough, so long as there aren't other problems with it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. You know I came here via Neelix. :) Drmies (talk) 16:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Don't know....

....if you have seen this. Regards,--Maragm (talk) 10:56, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Can you take a look at these edits/IP?

Can you take a look at these edits and advise what can be done? Thank you. Hmlarson (talk) 20:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@Hmlarson: we don't normally block IP addresses for long periods because they get reused by unrelated editors, but this IP had already been blocked for this so I re-blocked for 1 week. Thanks for your report, but you may want to report at WP:AIV next time for a faster response, your note landed here overnight for me. You can also request page protection at WP:RFPP which will prevent all new and anonymous users from editing the page, but I don't think the current level of disruption warrants it at the moment. Cheers. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 10:54, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Appreciate you taking a look. Hmlarson (talk) 15:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Enaya Afzal

Recent block; see also User:Enaya Afzal Siddiqui? Thanks. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 14:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• @Eagleash: yes, I blocked both already. Did you mean something else? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

No, I did not know if both accounts had been blocked as I could not see anything on the TP or userpage for the secondary (which is also not colour-compliant). Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 14:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I see the problem. Fixed. Thanks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Case status

Hi. Please use "hold" rather than "onhold". Apparently, the template recognizes "onhold", even though it doesn't list it as a possible parameter, but the bot that does the case overview does not. Thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 14:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Gotcha. I saw the "unkown" in the list and started thinking about how to fix that but then OMIGOD A SQUIRREL Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Please refer me to the place where...

...the matter of disruptive editing (to which you refer) has been discussed, leading you your blocking a particular IP address. I always identify myself, and there is no question of sockpuppeting. Hence, it is unclear on what policies or basis that this decision has been taken (and with what administrative authority). Please see my user page for who I am. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:27, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Moved from your user page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I had this at the top of this section. It was moved twice. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

These edits, now appearing in the order in which the edits were made, includes the second, a reply from someone other than Ivanvector, and is incomprehensible. What was moved from my User page? And why was this section, at Ivanvector's Talk page, the individual who issued the block in question (and so is the involved party, of whom clarification was requested) removed by you, NeilN? If you are not neutral and objective in matters pertaining to me, please, as an administrator, with advanced rights and responsibilities—recuse if you cannot act fairmindedly. Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:50, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@Leprof 7272: Look at where you posted originally. Jeez. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:55, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Again, your succinctness communicates nothing clearly. My first communication, on the matter at hand (the block of an IP address, experienced today), was at 04:27, 30 April 2017 (UTC). That is, my original post on this IP block was today, here. And it was addressed to the individual making the block. What is your surpassing interest in the matter? Order of edits returned to chronological, for clarity of understanding of followup editors. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Sigh... --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:03, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

If administrators are to perform their services in support of the encyclopedia, and of editors, you are doing neither. Please recuse yourself, if you cannot participate in a fair-minded way. From start (deletion of this Talk session) to finish ("sigh"), you have contributed nothing to the clarity of this matter, or to understanding. I will ask other admins to look in. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:11, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

...the matter of disruptive editing (to which you, @Ivanvector: refer) has been discussed, leading you your blocking a particular IP address. I always identify myself, and there is no question of sockpuppeting. Hence, it is unclear on what policies or basis that this decision has been taken (and with what administrative authority). Please see my user page for who I am. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:27, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Leprof 7272 Please read WP:NOBAN. You edited Ivanvector's userpage. This is normally frowned upon. NeilN transferred the section to the proper place (Ivanvector's user *talk* page). As for the IP block, please read Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Leprof 7272 and tag bombing. Ivanvector did a nice job explaining it all on your own talk. In a nutshell, you've ignored the multiple warnings you've received not to edit logged in and out on the same page. As a result, your IP has been blocked to prevent this. What else is there to explain? Sro23 (talk) 05:19, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@Sro23:I now understand, based on your description, what I did wrong at Ivanvector's User page, and it was inadvertent. (I know not to edit other individual's User pages.) Thank you for clarifying this, in one message. I never would have gotten this from NeilN's "Moved from your user page.", because of the ambiguity of the "your", and my perceiving that he was communicating to me. (I had thought this Talk page was, in the first place, where I had placed this inquiry.) Thank you for taking the time and words to sort this with me. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 09:10, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@Sro23: I have just found and finished replying to the Noticeboard matter. I will not have time for several days to catch up with my User Talk. A link to my reply to the matter follows. We can consider this discussion closed here; I simply was unaware of the whole situation, NeilN declined to point me to the Noticeboard despite repeated queries for clarification, and so I searched it out otherwise. (I did not see it at my User Talk page, and will not, because I strictly limit the time I spend there, because of longstanding clear evidence that it is the single venue wherein most time is wasted, subtracting from time that could be spent creating or improving content. I will look to that section, during the week of 6 May, likely on Tue-Wed when I am home and caught up.) Here is the link to my reply to the Noticeboard charges and decision. Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 08:56, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: @NeilN: My ignorance is lifted, see preceding message this thread, so there is no need for any further response. See the link to my reply to the Noticeboard charges and decision. Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 08:56, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Your preceding message displays a lot of self-justification and not a lot of understanding of the matter. I'm still not sure you understand you posted to Ivanvector's user page or what my edit summary of "I copied your post to the TALK page" means. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:03, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: See my thanks above, to Sro23, for making clear my inadvertant initial posting to Ivanvector's actual User page. I've re-read all your entries, here and at your Talk page, and still, in retrospect, could not have gotten from you, the clarity that Sro23 managed. In particular, your first greeting-free message (no name of whom you were addressing) was adjacent mine, but intended to address Ivanvector. Given that juxtaposition, your use of "your" led me to read your message as addressing me (i.e., "your" as "Le Prof's"). Hence your statement did not initially, and continued not to make any sense to me. This reading and interpretation—my seeing your post as a statement to me—should also make clear why I kept moving it chronologically after mine... Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 09:10, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Which is why I placed my message above yours, and not as a reply, as you insisted on changing to twice. Having "Moved from your user page" as the first post in a section makes it pretty clear who the post is addressed to. And please stop changing your "preceding message". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: I changed my 08:56 message, because I wrote it before I understood Sro23's meaning, and to have left it would have simply been confusing to Ivanvector and Sro23 and the thread in general. (No other deviousness or maliciousness, whatever you might think.) Again, I have acknowledged and given clear basis for the misunderstanding between us. Can you not acknowledge that you played a part, both initially, and thereafter in declining to try to understand, and alleviate, my confusion? You are an administrator, after all. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 09:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@Leprof 7272: "I copied your post to the TALK page" seems pretty clear. These misunderstandings seem to form a pattern of behavior on your part. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:51, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Leprof 7272, how did you not know that comments go on user talk pages instead of user pages after being here for, what, three years? Anyway, if you wish to appeal the topic ban, write a concise appeal and place it at AN. Writing longwinded text walls elsewhere is the wrong move. We're all volunteers here and our time is precious. Condensing your thoughts is just plain polite. El_C 09:29, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@El C: If you read what I wrote above, at 09:10 (deeply indented), you will see I have addressed the matter of posting on the User page, and your incredulity is misplaced. Otherwise, I have no desire or intention of appealing the topic ban. And as for your Wall of Text argument, a defense is always as long as the accusations, and mine is no longer. You are likely unschooled in law, and about arguments that typically take place in the process of accusation and rebuttal, but it is untoward to suggest that an accused not be given the chance to fully respond to charges leveled. I did no more, or no less, and it is not of great concern to me that people here are inclined to be unwilling to read a page of reasoning and argument. Otherwise, I just say, Je n'ai fait celle-ci plus longue que parce que je n'ai pas eu le loisir de la faire plus courte. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 09:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

How is my "incredulity" misplaced? You've been here for three years, and suddenly, you make that mistake(?), and even revert it(!). I, in fact, did read it in full and found it unnecessarily longwinded and, frankly, self-gratifying. El_C 10:06, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

You choose to impugn motive, and believe the worst, based on presuppositions about what passing time spent here means. So be it. There is nothing to be argued, and I cannot reply to insults in kind. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 23:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: The foregoing was all so much misunderstanding, which, as far as I am concerned can be collapsed of deleted. But do see my reply to the Noticeboard charges and decision. And note, that any editing that I have done, of late, prior to my entres above, were done in ignorance of the Noticeboard action. As I say above, I simple spend almost zero time at my Talk page. Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 09:48, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Leprof 7272, can you not see the utter absurdity of placing endless and repeated posts on other people's talkpages, while completely ignoring the posts you receive on your own talk page? A very large part of Wikipedia participation involves abiding by community standards and heeding talkpage notices. When, over a period of three years, you repeatedly disregard notices on your talk page about Wikipedia policies and guidelines and norms, you end up with sanctions. If you then still fail to read and comprehend the messages on your own talk page, especially those posted by administrators, you begin to fall afoul of Wikipedia's WP:CIR and WP:DE guidelines, and risk being blocked from editing for an indefinite length of time. A word to the wise there: Learn to cooperate and abide by Wikipedia's norms and guidelines, or your stay here may be involuntarily truncated. Softlavender (talk) 10:53, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

There is no absurdity whatsoever, in reaching out to people in the manner they are best reached. Every professional has annotations on their client/colleague vcards which say "never email" or "best by Slack" or "text before calling". That I can recognise others that use their WP Talk as a regular social venue, and are there daily, while not doing so myself—though this has led, operationally, to my having missed the opening and closing of the ANI, it is clearly not an irrational construct. Otherwise, I renew, at your Talk page, the invitation to explain your ire. Not your studied concern, or your principled objections to the mistakes I have made—some of which I admit to—but your anger/ire. Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 23:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• I may respond to this separately when I have more time, but please see User talk:Leprof 7272 for my response regarding the block. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2017

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

Administrator changes

Karanacs • Berean Hunter • GoldenRing • Dlohcierekim

Gdr • Tyrenius • JYolkowski • Longhair • Master Thief Garrett • Aaron Brenneman • Laser brain • JzG • Dragons flight

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC has clarified that user categories should be emptied upon deletion, but redlinked user categories should not be removed if re-added by the user.
• Discussions are ongoing regarding proposed changes to the COI policy. Changes so far have included clarification that adding a link on a Wikipedia forum to a job posting is not a violation of the harassment policy.

Technical news

• You can now see a list of all autoblocks at Special:AutoblockList.
• There is a new tool for adding archives to dead links. Administrators are able to restrict other user's ability to use the tool, and have additional permissions when changing URL and domain data.
• Administrators, bureaucrats and stewards can now set an expiry date when granting user rights. (discuss, permalink)

Miscellaneous

• Following an RfC, the editing restrictions page is now split into a list of active restrictions and an archive of those that are old or on inactive accounts. Make sure to check both pages if searching for a restriction.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Hm

While I advised them against it, I did explicitly give Slaterseven permission to undo my close. I don't know that it's worth un-re-un-closing at this rate, but it is a thing that happened. if i'm being honest, the jokes weren't even that good. i liked the edit summary though at least Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:57, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, I respect that, but I think it should stay closed. Obviously nothing's going to come of this and both editors need to drop it and move on. Letting one of them re-open to get one more jab in is pretty much the opposite of that.

That being said, mocking someone after they've expressed insult is very clearly harassment, and if I saw it first then someone would be blocked right now. I was in the process of saying so when you originally closed, but this thread in particular needs to be shut down. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:01, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fair. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

ANI

Not only Hijiri88 has reinserted deleted material added material after the ANI had been first closed (and after material you deems was " Parting shots" [2] but in addition it is untrue, but due to your closure of the ANI I am unable to respond. Here is my first attempt to add that I am dyslexic to my user page [3], here is my ANI launch [4], the next day. So can youi please remove this, and explain to Hijiri88 why.Slatersteven (talk) 16:10, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

This (by the way) was the comment I reopened the ANI to reply to, not Mjorpants last comment (and this was added after his last comment).Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: the comment by Hijiri88's IP was removed by another editor before I removed yours and Mjolnirpants' final unnecessary comments. I am sorry that you were insulted because of your disability and as I said in the section on this page above this one, had I seen it occurring Mjolnirpants would be sitting out a block right now, but this situation has resolved, and nothing will come of your insistence on drawing it out except that eventually your disruptive editing will bother the wrong administrator. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:18, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, I was just concerned that his re added comment was going to be actioned without me being able to defend myself. If this is not the case then I have no issue with the comment.Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

The comment was removed, and I have no interest in any further action here, but Writ Keeper did seem to be cautioning you explicitly that reopening the thread would expose you to such a result. Someone else has already archived the thread, so I think you needn't worry. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Cheers.Slatersteven (talk) 17:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Soon-to-be closed SPI case

Hi Ivanvector- just seeking clarification. Should I have opened a separate case here? I wasn't intentionally trying to link Vjm to the StylesClash case, but I noticed some weird connections (as detailed in the section "Unrelated SPI case?"), so I sought input from users familiar w/ Vjm at my talk page before submitting evidence. Another user encouraged me to reopen the StylesClash case rather than opening a new one. Levdr1lp / talk 14:41, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Normally if you're adding an investigation to an already-opened case, then you're asking to investigate a user's connection to an already-confirmed sockpuppeteer, StylesClash18 in this case. The basis of your request appears to be that all of the listed editors edit disruptively in WWE-related articles, which is true, and given that one of them is a previously-confirmed sockpuppeteer your request was well-founded. However none of us have access to Checkuser technical data, and when those findings were included the evidence pointed to a different result. You could have started a new case with Vhmljds as the master and SethAdam99 plus the IPs as alleged sockpuppets, but I think we would have ended up at the same outcome, and wouldn't have identified CerebralAssassin16 as a StylesClash18 sock. So no, you didn't do anything wrong here. If you do observe any other editing which suggests Vhmljds editing through alternate accounts in violation of their block, I would suggest opening a new case under Vhmljds' name and referring to this one as background, and a clerk may merge the reports if something comes up. Thanks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:03, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Levdr1lp / talk 04:16, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Hugh Thomas

Hello Ivanvector, I just saw the news in the Spanish media on the death of Hugh Thomas, yesterday 6 May. I'm fixing the article in es.wiki and just added his death in this wiki. Maybe you can help edit the article since I don't know the template that goes on top of the page when someone died recently, plus I think the news could also be included on the cover page. Many thanks and regards, --Maragm (talk) 21:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@Maragm: hi there, thanks for your note. Our Hugh Thomas page is a disambiguation page which lists several people named Hugh Thomas, I'm not sure which it is you're referring to. I'm about to run out for a bit so I won't be able to check back in for some time, but the template is {{recent death}} and you can put it at the very top of the page. We advise against using it unless the article is currently under heavy editing load because the person has died, but you can add it and I'm sure someone else will just remove it if they don't think it's necessary. Ciao. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:49, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant this Hugh Thomas. --Maragm (talk) 22:00, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Liberalism in Iran

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Liberalism in Iran. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for resolving the earlier ire

...at my Talk page. I have real work and real professional responsibilities. I am responding to this as fast as I can. Please, keep Jytdog off my page, and have others respect the "in use" banner until I can make it thorugh all that others have said. You all have had days on this. It is all news to me, as of discovering the IP block. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:08, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Please see also here. I presume I have the freedom to delete his insult at my Talk page. Jytdog routinely deletes user additions, as have most others I know, and so I have done so in the past. If not, revert it please. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:49, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Leprof 7272: yes, those remarks are clearly inappropriate and I've warned the user. The usual accepted approach to removing personal attacks is to replace the entire offending comment (excepting the user's signature) with {{rpa}}, which produces the text (Personal attack removed). I've replied to your question regarding the permanency of the ban below where you asked, and I'll respect your request to leave the page alone for a bit. I'm going to be away from the computer for a bit anyway. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Two stray points. My lack of ability to conclude you were an admin led to some confusion about who was doing what with the ban/block. If there is a way to make this more front and center on your User page—one of the little boxes that discloses such, or a simple statement near the top—in retrospect, it would have helped. Second, if there is a way in which an email can be sent to you, please call that to my attention. I am near end, at the extent to which I can discuss matters here. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 23:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

There is a "topicon" on my page which indicates that I am an administrator, but you're right that I could make this more clear. I'll consider expediting this. You can email me by clicking on the "email this user" link in the menu to the left. Note that you have to have your own email enabled for this to work. See Special:Preferences if you haven't. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Please touch on the "last warning" language on my Talk page, when you have a chance. I am still clueless as to what prompted it, and cannot for the life of me reconstruct a reasonable explanation from time stamps. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 23:36, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: Please have a look in at my Talk page. I am extremely busy with work, and have not had time to respond to the long arguments already made. And, despite the "in use", people continue to add further content. In its static form, I can hardly hope to be able to reply; if the target keeps moving, I cannot possibly reply, and will just give up entirely. (I will reply at their Talk page, to the one administrator who seems to wish to express something, so that they do not take offense.)

And I am still at a loss about the "last warning" language, coming from you, an admin. I have reviewed it within the timeline, and it appears that while I was composing a long reply to the existing material, you and others were continuing to add material. This had two consequences: (i) my working offline on the response made it appear I was ignoring you, and (ii) the continuing edits made the response I was preparing into one long, impossible-to-resolve edit conflict, so I could not post it. (That prepared response, now unusable, is why I ask the material remain static until I can reply; I cannot possibly hit the target [people's points and contentions], if it continues to move.) I'd ask you to look back to the "final warning" language that was presented there, and see if it was indeed, not misunderstanding of the developing situation, rather than willful defiance, that was at issue. The tone of that language casts and unnecessary pall over that conversation, and I would rather it be removed or clarified, than remain. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 13:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Leprof 7272, sorry to hear you're still having problems. I'll reply here out of respect for your desire to parse the discussions on your own page at your own pace. I can't guarantee that others will respect your request, unfortunately, and I am not aware of any policy that would enable an administrator to enforce your request if others choose to disregard it. If it helps, you might try drafting your response on some other page, like your sandbox, and copy it over to your talk in one go when you're ready. At least that way you ought not need to worry about edit conflicts, so long as you're careful not to ping anyone while drafting (linking to someone's username usually triggers a ping, and a notification for them to reply). Regarding my "final warning": as I recall it was in regard to your insistence on removing posts from your talk and forcing them onto other pages, which at the time I did interpret as wilful defiance of a commonly accepted conversation protocol which I felt you had been adequately advised of. You may consider that particular warning retracted, and I will edit your page in a moment to make note of this so that someone else does not act upon it inadvertently.

You've caught me on payroll day so I am quite busy and may not be able to respond further for some time, but let me know if I can be of any more help. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:23, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: Thank you kind Canadian sir, for the strike through, and for anything you can do to keep the Talk expanse contained. But I am not having any problems to speak of. The only matter here is if there is a way forward in my volunteering (at present there does not appear to be), and if not, how to gracefully exit. Rest from me will come via email, of a weekend. Check the edit history on this text; meanwhile, yours is the only response that I have scripted to call on me, if you engage. Cheers. Le Prof 73.210.155.96 (talk) 18:20, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reem (singer)

I'm a little confused by your close on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reem (singer). The AfD was originally closed by me, and then taken to DRV, and then the decision was made to relist it so that a discussion about newly found sources could take place. However, it appears that the relisted discussion had only been open for about 24 hours before you closed it. Shouldn't the relisted discussion remain open for 7 days before being closed? ‑Scottywong| gossip _ 02:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@Scottywong: sounds like I misread the timeline and my close is inappropriate. I don't have a good connection at the moment but please feel free to remove my close and relist again if you think that'll draw more comment. Thanks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 10:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! ‑Scottywong| babble _ 15:56, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Your talk page comment

FYI, Your recent comment on the Ezra Levant talk page was removed by this edit. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:44, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@Peter Gulutzan: thanks, another editor restored it later. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Page protection...

Sorry to drop in like that, but I noticed that some the protection requests you tag as declined do not archive automatically; I think this is due to the fact that you do not use the RFPP administrator notation templates provided on the page. Just as a heads-up. Lectonar (talk) 16:53, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@Lectonar: oh, I subst'd the templates and I shouldn't have, and I don't watch the page out of habit. Thanks for following up. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:56, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 16:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry

Hi Greg, what User:Terabar has been trying to convey has merits. At least this[5] makes sense. These users are part of a specialized IT team[6] who were failed once[7] and have been editing from a particular POV. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. Thank you. --ProudIndian007 (talk) 07:56, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

@Marvellous Spider-Man: My apologies, I just accidentally rolled back your edits here when I meant to revert with an explanation. It doesn't appear that anyone has mentioned you here and in particular the editor you pinged hasn't edited this page. Your ping to the editor above will not have worked, but my inclination when dealing with this sort of "everyone who disagrees with me is part of a government conspiracy" nonsense is to just ignore it. And yes, I noticed that this account hadn't edited at all in the three years prior to the post above, but please don't make accusations of sockpuppetry without evidence. If you would like to request an investigation please compile evidence and open a sockpuppet investigation; I know you're familiar with the venue. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Continued harassment with false sock allegations

Despite your warning[8], Terabar did it again[9] ("Capitals00 and D4iNa4 are sockpuppets as they are continuously reverting other editors"), with other technically false claims, "You were the one who once blocked him", though I never had block from Bbb23.

Of course I see this to be a bigger mess, apart from the "government conspiracy" section above this one, a new user has popped out of nowhere, to support these same allegations of Terabar, and edit war where Terabar edit warred last time, despite another admin told him he is entirely wrong.[10][11] I mentioned you on the SPI too. Capitals00 (talk) 09:42, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

User: Capitals00, I mistook Bbb23 as a blocking admin rather than User: Rschen7754 who once blocked you for sockpuppetry. I am really sorry for that mistake and I will remove my comment after this edit. But tell me that how did you know that you were sharing an Ip with Rzvas? Give me an answer. Terabar (talk) 10:48, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

It is ridiculous how User: Capitals00 is accusing others of what he did himself. You accused me of socking and removed my message from an article's talk page[12]. You filed a wrong edit warning complaint against me as well[13]. You also accused me of "frequently" mentioning of Dharmendra which I never did on User:El C's talk page[14]?! Drivarum (talk) 11:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For thinking, analyzing the entire issue before taking action. Wish there were more admins like you. Capitals00 (talk) 12:55, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Capitals00 and D4iNa4

Greetings User: Ivanvector ! I don't have any enmity with you so please abandon any negative thoughts if you have any towards me. As Drivarum mentioned that these two accounts are escaping 3RR by using two ids. There is another possible evidence I have collected. See how Capitals nominated an article for deletion [15] and then D4iNa4 voted for delete [16]. Isn't this argument enough that these both are sockpuppets? Why not check compare tool where they support each other in order to escape 3RR? And how would Capitals know that he shared Ip address with Rzvas? yes, I am repeating that because I haven't got the answer. Please note that I am not alleging but I am just suspicious. Terabar (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Troublesome anons

Thank you for that block! He was starting to get on my nerves. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 20:57, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion

Sir, I got it regarding the IP connection. I won't bring it. Can you please suggest me what is the best course of action when someone just remove our message from their own talk page without any response when they are discussing about me? Like my this message[17] was instantly removed[18] with no explanation. What are the rules for such personal conversations? Thanks in advance. Drivarum (talk) 14:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Drivarum editors are allowed some leeway for "cleaning up" their own talk pages, which can include moving or deleting posts. Our guideline on user talk pages suggests that if an editor removes your message, it should be taken as an indication that they've read it, and nothing more. I would call it bad form to remove posts by a user when you're talking about that user, but they are technically allowed. If you think that it's an ongoing problem then you might want to raise the issue at WP:ANI, but I think in this case you shouldn't worry about it too much. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the clear instructions. I got it and i will just ignore and move on. Already wasted so much energy and time in all these mess. I really appreciate your efforts and apologies for all the trouble from me. Have a great weekend! Drivarum (talk) 14:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Request

Hi Ivanvector - You recently blocked 107.77.206.36 for block evasion. Can you take a look at the edits made by 71.11.137.150? Hmlarson (talk) 17:40, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Hmlarson. My rangeblock of 107.77.192.0/18 (which covers the IP above) is related to long-term harassment on an administrator's page. The editor using 107.77.206.36 on May 6 just got caught up in it, but they don't seem to be the same person and their edits yesterday can't be considered block evasion. If they continue to be disruptive I suggest requesting semiprotection at RFPP, or ping me again and I'll take another look. Thanks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Pregunta sobre: Arise from Darkness

Hello how are you?

I did some editing on the Spanish page of the film Arise from Darkness, and I did not find its version in English, what I found is that the article has a deletion history.

I would like to know if I can do an exact translation of the Spanish version, and if so, if you think that it is best to propose it as a draft for an administrator to review, or if you can review it directly.

It would be my first edit in english Wikipedia.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Androveritas (talk • contribs) 05:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Ivan. Did you check my request? What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Androveritas (talk • contribs) 23:28, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Proudindian/Anatha connection

Pings were not working at the moment[19] and I had pinged you on SPI and added something helpful[20] to the SPI. Now that Drivarum is blocked as sock of ProudIndian, do you agree with the connection? Capitals00 (talk) 16:08, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2017

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

Administrator changes

Doug Bell • Dennis Brown • Clpo13 • ONUnicorn

ThaddeusB • Yandman • Bjarki S • OldakQuill • Shyam • Jondel • Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC proposing an off-wiki LTA database has been closed. The proposal was broadly supported, with further discussion required regarding what to do with the existing LTA database and defining access requirements. Such a tool/database formed part of the Community health initiative's successful grant proposal.
• Some clarifications have been made to the community banning and unblocking policies that effectively sync them with current practice. Specifically, the community has reached a consensus that when blocking a user at WP:AN or WP:ANI, it is considered a "community sanction", and administrators cannot unblock unilaterally if the user has not successfully appealed the sanction to the community.
• An RfC regarding the bot policy has closed with changes to the section describing restrictions on cosmetic changes.

Technical news

• Users will soon be able to blacklist specific users from sending them notifications.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2017 elections, the new members of the Board of Trustees include Raystorm, Pundit and Doc James. They will serve three-year terms.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

User:ArthurRebelnatico

Hey Ivanvector! As yofor probably know, I'm trying to retain my retirement since ... I really need to. Though I am committed to doing my retirement, I still care about the whole aspect of Wikipedia's existence, as well as it being run properly without malice, but at this point in my life, I can't dedicate virtually any time to Wikipedia. Anyways, with that being said...

I think you may be able to help out with something I discovered ... happening again ... after I "went dark" for a bit. There's a sockmaster I have dealt with quite a bit in the past who originally used the account User:ArthurRebelnatico. I used to deal with him rather frequently via their SPI case page. Anyways, I just discovered that they are active again. When I was dealing with them before, they would create account names that were variations of certain words ... which can be found in their SPI case archives. Their targets of pages they edit are related to Brazillian pop music or artists, usually related in some fashion to Rebeldes. A rather easy giveaway that it is them editing is either an editor of related pages performing several edits in succession, usually beginning with an edit that either removes or adds at least 1 kilobyte to the page. However, as of late, it seems that they have been using only unregistered accounts, editing as an anon using an IP. It seems that the edit from a device on either the same network or closely related networks: All of the IPs I've seen them edit from start with either "179.108.48.###" or "179.108.50.###". In fact, if you see the two edits I performed prior to this one, you will see that I reverted some of their edits: [21] and [22].

Anyways, my point is that there may be enough information here to validate a range block, but I'm not sure: there may be too much collateral damage due to false positives. Either way, if that may be true, it may be necessary to pending changes protect or semi-protect the pages they frequent, but I'm not sure. (Their SPI archives has a nice list of pages they frequent.) So, im hoping you can assist with this matter in one way or another since ... I cannot spend and really do not have the time or capacity to deal with Wikipedia matters in the manner you are probably accustomed with me being/having in the past. Anyways, hope all is well, and as they say ... Cheers! Steel1943 (talk) 22:38, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Steel1943, yeah I noticed you decided to take an extended break some time ago. Not sure if your checking in here is good for whatever you're up to off-site but I hope you don't mind the ping response here (it looks like you might have disabled pings already anyway). The IPs do look pretty obvious to that case, and it looks like you're not the only one that thinks so. I've been trying to do more article work myself lately as a form of self-care and lately I haven't been checking in on SPI unless I have a good chunk of time to devote to it, and some of the pages are PC-protected already, but at a glance it looks like we should be able to craft a pretty accurate range block. Take care. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:13, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

NPOV issue

Hi, I'm asking you specifically as an uninvolved editor who seems to have their head screwed on to take a look at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Pentecost. Each year Pentecost goes on the main page when it is celebrated (this year within 24 hours) and I am concerned about a spate of recent edits. I may be over-reacting. I just want outside opinions. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 00:29, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yaysmay15

The sockpuppet investigations for Yaysmay15 has been backlogged with two of my latest reports I added, involving IPs. I created a LTA entry for Yaysmay15 for reference on any disruptive activity involving that user, which started as "Vince daryl falcunitin", that changed to the main account, "Yaysmay15", and the former is changed to a sleeper account from June 2016. I have reverted edits by those IPs listed at the reports and flagged the two as IP sockpuppets, but no action has been taken. Can you please have a look at those reports, and apply the possible remedies if possible?--TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 04:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

About Arise of Darkness

Hello, have you seen the query I made to you above, about the possibility of translating the page Arise of Darkness from Spanish to English? As I said, I saw that the English version was deleted by you, so I want to consult with an editor who is aware of the case, to see if it is possible to do that translation. Can you help me with your opinion on how to proceed, or tell me who I should consult with? Thank you!--Androveritas (talk) 03:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Androveritas, I apologize for my delayed response, I've not been checking in here very often in the last few days. The article has been deleted here because both the film studio and the previous editors have been connected to undisclosed paid editing, which we do not allow here. If you would like to try translating the Spanish article, I suggest you write the article in your sandbox and then ask an administrator to review. You can ask at the administrators' noticeboard or follow the articles for creation process. Please be sure if you do translate the article that you locate reliable sources which demonstrate the film's notability, since poor sourcing has also been an issue with this article in the past. Thanks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi,Thanks for the reply. Do not worry, there's no problem. Ivanvector: Once the translation is in my sandbox, can I contact you to review it or do you prefer to put the "{subst:submit}" command in the article?

All references to the article are in English. Can you check the references and tell me if you think you should have some additional references?

Thank you in advance.

Regards. --Androveritas (talk) 00:26, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

@Androveritas: when you've written your draft, please leave a link to it here and I'll take a quick look, but most likely I will post it on a noticeboard to invite editors with more experience with films and studios to comment as well. Thanks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:54, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello Ivan. Hoping you're doing great. I wrote the draft translation in my sandbox.User:Androveritas/sandboxI'll thank you, take a look. I am grateful in advance. Stay tuned. Greetings.--Androveritas (talk) 03:59, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Edday1051

I'm not at all happy with what's been going on with this user since he was unblocked. He's been edit-warring at least twice in just a month. I'm sure he would say that UW Dawgs is hounding and provoking him. I have no idea whether that's so, but even if it is, it doesn't excuse Edday's behavior, especially given the promise in his unblock requests not to use multiple accounts or edit-war again. If he feels that UW Dawgs is wrong and is violating policy, then he should seek sanctions against him, not edit-war himself. What's your view?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

@Bbb23: thanks for the note. I had a pretty quick look into it, and it does look to me like he's being hounded at least a bit, although UW Dawgs has a point. I left a note on Edday1051's talk page explaining the requirements to add sources and not restore unsourced contested material, hopefully that will help. Edday did try to raise this at ANI a week or so ago but nobody replied, and both of them have made frivolous AIV posts against each other. I'm not going to contest a block if you think he's violated the terms of his "parole" or whatever, but I think we can try to work this out. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not eager to reblock so I'll defer to your optimism. I try to pay as little attention to ANI as I can. --Bbb23 (talk) 16:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing !

Thanks for noticing my research at The Plot to Hack America, and thanks for your thank you !!!

Sagecandor (talk) 16:14, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

@Sagecandor: thank you for cleaning up my sloppy reference error. I should have checked for that. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:09, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

It's always nice when someone positively notices my new article creation. Especially when another wishes for it to be fucking removed from existence. Sagecandor (talk) 14:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Image for jets

Page: Serbian_Air_Force_and_Air_Defence Please return the aircraft image for each plane there is a picture of the original, many people read that page, they agreed that the image should return, and that they do not pose any problem. once again please the agreement.All we are trying that this page looks better and that with accurate and reliable information to assist in arranging her. Go back the way it was. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evandro321 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

VJ-Yugo is back

Hi, this account smells like another sock of VJ-Yugo [23]. Repetitive deletion of Branimir Anzulovic and interest in war stuff. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:49, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Wanted to let you know that I'd retired

Thank you for earlier affirming interactions. See User:Leprof_7272 page for details regarding my departure, if interested. Bonne chance. Le Prof 73.210.155.96 (talk) 16:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Otto Warmbier

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Otto Warmbier. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

That SPI case

Thanks. I hadn't realised I should change the status. I'll try to remember next time. Doug Weller talk 15:23, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

VJ-Yugo

Hi, this account is another sock of VJ-Yugo [24]. Deletion of stuff added by me and interested in war stuff. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:45, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@Ktrimi991: thanks for your note, I have requested an investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/VJ-Yugo. Please note that removal of edits under WP:EVADE is only allowed if a clerk has determined that the account is a sockpuppet, otherwise it is best to leave the edits until the determination is made rather than mass-revert and possibly start an edit war. Cheers. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:12, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Ivanvector. Socks have targeted my edits and you are doing so much fighting them. I reverted Jaehen4555 after an experienced editor had done so before though they did not revert because of sock puppetry suspicions. I have seen several experienced editors to revert new accounts in the same circumstances. However the best is to act in harmony with WP:EVADE. I will keep your advice in mind. Regards, Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:05, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I added my comment [25]. Maybe just coincidences. Regards, Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:10, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

TFA

Thank you for the Canadian bird! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:24, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Hi, I think TryDeletingMe (talk · contribs) might be a sockpuppet of User:VJ-Yugo. I'm not sure how SPI works, can you have them check? If they are, I assume Terrorism in Serbia should be deleted? Thanks. –barakokula31 (talk) 14:50, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi there Barakokula31! I had a look at that account this morning when I was cleaning up a different VJ-Yugo sock, and I concluded they're not the same user as VJ-Yugo, although it is suspicious. If you think that Terrorism in Serbia should be deleted for other reasons besides having been created by a blocked user, I suggest you should go through WP:AFD to nominate the article for deletion. If you need help please feel free to ask me here, although I'm likely going to be away for the next day or so at least. You can also ask a question at the AFD talk page. Cheers. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed that article some days after it was created and it really should be deleted. It is an accumulation of POV that presents Albanians as terrorists who "stole" Kosovo from the Serbs. The KLA is considered an "terrorist" organization who was helped by the Western countries. WP:Undue, WP:POV, WP:Reliable sources, WP:Verify and so on, there are many policies that the creator of article has not respected. Every new editor should be introduced with that article and advised not to write similar ones. TryDeletingMe created the new article after stuff they wanted to add was not accepted by other editors in another article, Terrorism in Yugoslavia. They created article even though the stuff they put in it was opposed by others thus TryDeletingMe did not respect WP:Discuss and WP:Consensus. Socks of Vj-Yugo started to revert me and vandalize my talk page one day after my first interaction with TryDeletingMe. I have doubts if TryDeletingMe is really a sock of VJ-Yugo or not, I suggest a SPI. If TryDeletingMe is not a sock of VJ-Yugo, it is of someone else. "TryDeletingMe" is a suspicious username for a newbie who sent a barnstar in their sixth day. By the way Ivan, thanks for newest blocked socks and moving this page [26]. I wanted to move it some days ago but couldn't for reasons I don't know. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:06, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm on my bike in the woods outside Charlottetown right now, but like I said, the route to deletion is via AFD. You might be right but I think it's worth a proper discussion. As for the moved page, there was a redirect blocking the move so you couldn't do it. I just removed the redirect, the article should obviously be at that title. In future, you can ask for someone to do this for you at WP:RM under the section "technical requests". Thanks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice about requests at WP:RM. Yeah the route to deletion is via AFD but since you pinged –barakokula31 they may agree with arguments I wrote here and may decide to use them if they nominate the article for deletion. I wrote what I have noticed about similarities between VJ-Yugo and TryDeletingMe since the topic was part of the discussion and if Barankoula needs someone to open a SPI I will do it. Regards, Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Ktrimi991 (talk · contribs) Barakokula31 (talk · contribs) Terrorism in Serbia is a legitimate page with legitimate references. There are sources and evidence on the page indicating that the KLA is a terrorist organisation. Your personal opinions about the KLA and also my username is something that should be kept to yourselves. Any unnecessary changes to the page will be seen as vandalism and also evidence that suggests you support a terrorist organisation. There is no justification to delete Terrorism in Serbia as that page was created based on suggestions in the Terrorism in Yugoslavia talk page. Lots of love TryDeletingMe (talk · contribs)(talk) 17:06, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@TryDeletingMe: that "the KLA is a terrorist organization" is one point of view; another perfectly valid point of view is that the KLA is a group of freedom fighters, and WP:NPOV insists that we do not select one viewpoint over others. Constructive editorial discussion about making an article conform to NPOV, or removing an article if it presents an inappropriately weighted POV, is not vandalism. Do not accuse other editors of vandalism just because you disagree with their edits and do not cast aspersions about anyone's support of any organization; both of these are personal attacks and will not be tolerated. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:08, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: editors are attempting to remove the Terrorism in Serbia page because of their personal beliefs. This is being done instead of contributing to the page and adding reputable sources that support their viewpoint that the KLA is a freedom fighter group, something which they are more than welcome to do, given that it is a wiki page. Editors are attempting to paint those who are against their personal beliefs as trolls and sock puppets. Given that these editors have not contributed to the Terrorism in Serbia page in a constructive way and have in turn, resorted to username mocking and threats to vandalise pages (something which is the hallmark of immaturity), I suspect there is no evidence that supports their personal belief. I am amazed that these accusations are being made against me and will act accordingly if this hypocrite express continues to pick up speed. These accusations in fact reflect the behaviors of @Ktrimi991: and @Barakokula31:. As mentioned, Wikipedia pages are not private domains and any unnecessary removal without legitimate reasons will be deemed as vandalism (as per the information page provided). I will be sure to scan the Daesh page just in case their page is removed due to editors personal beliefs that they are "freedom fighters" and will act accordingly to stop such acts. TryDeletingMe (talk · contribs)(talk) 12:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2017

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

Administrator changes

Happyme22 • Dragons flight

Zad68

Guideline and policy news

• The RFC discussion regarding WP:OUTING and WMF essay about paid editing and outing (see more at the ArbCom noticeboard archives) is now archived. Milieus #3 and #4 received support; so did concrete proposal #1.

Technical news

• Fuzzy search will soon be added to Special:Undelete, allowing administrators to search for deleted page titles with results similar to the search query. You can test this by adding ?fuzzy=1 to the URL, as with Special:Undelete?fuzzy=1. Currently the search only finds pages that exactly match the search term.
• A new bot will automatically revision delete unused file versions from files in Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old.

Miscellaneous

• A newly revamped database report can help identify users who may be eligible to be autopatrolled.
• A potentially compromised account from 2001–2002 attempted to request resysop. Please practice appropriate account security by using a unique password for Wikipedia, and consider enabling two-factor authentication. Currently around 17% of admins have enabled 2FA, up from 16% in February 2017.
• Did you know: On 29 June 2017, there were 1,261 administrators on the English Wikipedia – the exact number of administrators as there were ten years ago on 29 June 2007. Since that time, the English Wikipedia has grown from 1.85 million articles to over 5.43 million.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Crime in Sweden

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Crime in Sweden. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2017

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

Administrator changes

Anarchyte • GeneralizationsAreBad • Cullen328 ^{(first RfA to reach WP:300)}

Cprompt • Rockpocket • Rambo's Revenge • Animum • TexasAndroid • Chuck SMITH • MikeLynch • Crazytales • Ad Orientem

Guideline and policy news

• Following a series of discussions around new pages patrol, the WMF is helping implement a controlled autoconfirmed article creation trial as a research experiment, similar to the one proposed in 2011. You can learn more about the research plan at meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial. The exact start date of the experiment has yet to be determined.
• A new speedy deletion criterion, regarding articles created as a result undisclosed paid editing, is currently being discussed (permalink).
• An RfC (permalink) is currently open that proposes expanding WP:G13 to include all drafts, even if they weren't submitted through Articles for Creation.

Technical news

• LoginNotify should soon be deployed to the English Wikipedia. This will notify users when there are suspicious login attempts on their account.
• The new version of XTools is nearing an official release. This suite of tools includes administrator statistics, an improved edit counter, among other tools that may benefit administrators. You can report issues on Phabricator and provide general feedback at mw:Talk:XTools.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)