User talk:Ivanvector/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Trouted

You have been trouted for: Endorsing the permanent ban of Adûnâi based on one single edit summary from 3 years ago. Seems a bit harsh and dare I say politically or socially motivated... Also you called his opinion "objectively disgusting". How are religious editors and editors who believe that marriage is between a man and a woman supposed to believe that you can be a truly unbiased admin? PS: I'm an agnostic person who is 100% ok with same-sex marriage. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 03:32, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

This is a poor summary of the situation. The comment that led to the block was "objectively disgusting" to the point that it has been removed from public view; it will have to suffice to say that I used the word "objectively" because I honestly believe that any reasonable person holding any set of beliefs, even if they were among the very large population staunchly opposed to marriage other than between one man and one woman, would have found the comment inhumane and terrible. Even if a reasonable person agreed with the underlying sentiment, they would not have said such a vile thing on this website. I'm not going to repeat it here, I would expect to be blocked myself. It was bad. But yes, it was three years ago, and I've said myself many times that we can't expect to block for incidents so far in the past, and would not have had that been the end of it. But it wasn't: the user responded to the criticism in that thread by defending the comment, and trying to pass off their insensitive trolling as a joke. It was after that comment that they were blocked, and justly so.

You can hold whatever beliefs you want (excepting Nazis) and nobody will have a problem with your editing here. We don't expect anyone to have no opinions at all; admins are not the thought police and an admin who was going around blocking editors just for having opposing views would not be an admin for very long. But when an editor thinks it's acceptable (or worse, "funny") to make comments using words and phrases that are explicitly meant to attack and dehumanize, they're not fit to participate in a collaborative project and they will be shown the door. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello.

I see that you archived a discussion on the Kamala Harris talk page after only a single retort. Wikipedia has a lot of pages on procedure, so I don't really know where to look for an explanation. I think it polite to at least wait 24 hours before doing such a thing. But more than that it seems like the point of a talk page is discussion among many editors. Anyway, I made a copy after replying so that others could contribute to the conversation, but I don't really know how these things work. It seems that every time I "Be bold," people are very, very rude to me (in fact, outside of articles, Wikipedia feels very toxic compared to, IDK 15 years ago). So anyway, I wanted to give you a heads up and maybe learn a few things from you. Thanks.--2604:2D80:DE13:6300:BC82:F2F:2F93:E82E (talk) 14:33, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

My apologies. I archived many discussions on the page this morning which were of the form of insisting that her ethnicity is something else than what is described in the article, most of which had a single reply in the form "please read the FAQ", the FAQ having been written specifically to answer this one repetitive question that has already been answered. I see you've seen the FAQ already. Un-archiving an archived thread is fine too if you feel it was archived too early, and it does seem I made a mistake there. You shouldn't ever edit an archive, they're supposed to be a static record of completed discussions. Adding comments to an archive misrepresents the discussion, and also probably nobody will ever see your comment because most editors don't watch talk page archives. Since you already restored the thread on the talk page and added your comment there, I removed all of it from the archive. Someone else will re-archive the discussion when it naturally concludes. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:39, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for blocking 2607:fea8:2d20:10ce::/64 !

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 01:05, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking

Hi Ivanvector. Many thanks for putting the block on U1Quattro, it will make for a much better experience when editing various automotive articles. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 07:44, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Block of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/95.103.231.0

"Block evasion, as before", you wrote - I assume you believe that the IP above is a sock of Brockhold. The blocked IP is from Bratislava, and two IPs from Bratislava have now tag-team edited Der Stürmer (where the blocked IP also edited), 195.91.48.221 and 95.102.240.38.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:53, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Personal attacks by User:EEng at Talk:Kamala Harris. Thank you. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 23:40, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi! Might you please help me, as an admin, with misleading and bias in Wiki?

To make a long story short, I tried to edit the page related to 'hate group' multiple time to make it more diverse & sources-conforming, but all the time moderators or another 'watchers' undid it to one previous version represented only selected by someone narrative that does not even stay in line with today's point of an authors research center. As a person who doesn't like the use of only one side of a complex problem, I can't stay with it but now try to solve the problem within Wiki, not within media and related public instruments.

More longer: Does today's English Wikipedia provides support for biased views and only selected forms of hate? > Welcomes everybody to the discussion below 'Hate group' paper. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hate_group#Our_#Wikipedia_is_not_one's_Political_Instrument. Summary: today's version looks misleading, American-centrist (nothing mention phenomena of hate outside the USA and Southern Poverty Law Center) and moderators looks American chauvinist and supporting only nazi's or related old white supremacy symbols or flags, whereas even the major domain research center, SPLC as mentioned before, shows that have is more inclusive and diverse (in a negative way of this concepts). Moreover, the previous article authors misleading at FBI official state quotation to hate crimes to prove their own view. Hatred is not American or other today's rich country movements privilege, it has no borders or faces. Only people who do hate have these signs of division. And hate definitely has not only black/brown/multiracial/white/WASP/yellow or whatever you 'Americans' like to use to divisive yourself.

>> My heart is bleeding from English Wikipedia Censorship. I participated in the Wiki community of 3 languages (one from the beginning) for 10 years, but never saw this before. My ancestors, who were imprisoned to labor and concentration camps because of their nationality, ethnicity, and views, also would not approve your totalitarian informational policy of global source for the sake of polarization and mobilization of the population within one country before their local elections.

>> * Before: https://imgur.com/esXx8ja (misleading symbols with no sources, strange position of moderators that hate have the face and that is the only one (needed?) face)

>> * After: https://imgur.com/UrYMQQ0 (paraphrase misleading definition and unreasonable but conscious incorrect FBI citations, flags, and emblems with a source from a major source all other article formulated on)

>> * Letter about Wiki unjustice: https://imgur.com/IyeRmex — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:9E01:740:A4A5:22F0:4853:5FB3 (talk) 06:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

This editor has posted the same, or virtually the same, message to 7 administrators' talk pages and to a number of other talk pages. They have received answers at at least two of those pages (I have better things to do with my time than check every one of them, so it may be more than two) and have been directed to Talk:Hate group. JBW (talk) 21:18, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

John from Idegon

Just a head's up, I have unblocked John from Idegon after I saw a reasonable and apologetic unblock request, and emerging consensus that it was acceptable. See User talk:John from Idegon#Unblock request Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:04, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Do whatever the hell you want, Ritchie333, you're obviously going to anyway. I'm sure you could have guessed how I, a long term SPI clerk and checkuser, feel about you unblocking an editor who was openly evading my block, especially one who's evidently a friend of yours, and not bothering to mention it to me until it was already done. I don't have any problem with John being unblocked, but the way you went about it is bullshit. Consensus my ass. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:58, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I can assure you the principal reason for the unblock is to give allowance for the strain the COVID-19 pandemic is having on people's mental health. I have seen people moved to suicide over it, and hence I can show empathy for a bit of sniping, both on John's original comments, and yours above. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You might want to consider how personally you are taking Wikipedia, Ivan. Wikipedia blocked me (with plenty of cause for a week, not an indeff); you only pushed a button. You yourself are not the job you do here. Internalizing like that is both hard on your health, and leads to bad decision making. I'm not upset with at all. I had something coming to me when you blocked me; I have issue with the duration and your haste in doing it, but both those things are within your discretion and I hold no malice. I find your attitude in the above comment quite troubling. Frankly, you've insinuated that I was block evading to spite you, and that is quite insulting. Children do things out of spite, and although I have many faults, being childish isn't one of them. Life is extremely stressful for everyone, everywhere right now. Perhaps you need to give yourself a break, so perhaps you'll better understand when others need one. I spent 25 years in the hotel business, the first five as a line employee. Most of that 5 years was as a night auditor, back before cash registers were computerized. When you spend 8 hours a day fixing mistakes, if you're not careful, everything starts to look like a mistake. That's the same reason cops have high suicide and divorce rates - when you spend every day dealing with garbage, the world starts to look like garbage. You spend a bunch of time mired under Wikipedia ugliness. Maybe you need a day at the beach, or whatever your local regulations will allow right now. We live in scary times. But the roses still bloomed this summer in Oregon. Do with this as you wish. It is sincerely meant. Be well. John from Idegon (talk) 10:11, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: thanks for your note, John. I'm glad to see you back, sincerely. Had I seen your unblock request earlier I would have accepted myself, but I have been keeping distance from Wikipedia lately just because I have other things to work on. My comment on block evasion was not directed at you (none of it was really): Ritchie and I at least seem to agree that blocks just for block evasion are pointlessly punitive, and I would not have opposed your unblock on solely that basis. However, he and I have some history here which leads me to believe he knew what he was doing by unblocking you without so much as notifying me about the discussion, and now you see he's off using the flimsy excuse of my expected negative reaction to rally the troops calling for my head. I'm genuinely sorry you've been caught in the middle of that.

I assure you I have no issue with you, and hope that the recent wave of drama doesn't unreasonably sour your enjoyment of Wikipedia. If I can do anything else to help please feel free to ask. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

"However, he and I have some history here..." The only history I can remember is positive, not least at your RfA, when I said, "It's good to have a candidate who can do a bit of everything; so I'm happy that someone suitable has stepped up to the plate. In particular, I have criticised our sockpuppetry policies and processes in the past, so for me to put forward someone who takes a particular interest in this area should be taken as a ringing endorsement of his abilities." I don't think my view has particularly changed on that. I was just curious to read your completely out of character rant and wondered if it was something anyone else thought was below the belt, or whether I had simply brought the whole thing on myself. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'm not sure what this history is, but IMO whether you have history is irrelevant. As an experienced admin you should already know that we're supposed to contact the blocking administrator prior to overturning a block, which is not only a basic courtesy and a firmly-established norm, but a stipulation of blocking policy. Unblocking without doing so and instead leaving a "heads up" that you have already done so is likely to come across as a passive-aggressive slap in the face to most people. If you're perceived as being a "friend" of the editor you're unblocking, and the blocking admin feels (correctly or not) that there is bad-blood between you, that would only serve to make the situation way worse. It's not exactly some earth-shattering surprise that someone would be pissed off. Whether this was a calculated move in good faith, or a simple oversight in good faith, the response is a simple apology with an explanation. Instead your comments, show no acknowledgment of any of this, and instead you're citing your empathy for mental health, invoking the specter of suicide, quoting your praise for the person, calling their behavior "out of character", and discussing them on the talk page of the blocked user without pinging them, and then claiming you're doing so to protect them? If the unblock was not meant to be passive-aggressive, good lord, everything you're doing since then is making it look so much worse. I can't speak for Ivan and I have no idea what the underlying context beneath the surface is, but even just at face value this is a poor show. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 19:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

The policy says "administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator". "should avoid" is not "must always". If you're upset John's unblocked, go and indef block him. Otherwise, find an article to improve. In either case, this discussion is just noise now. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Ha ha! There's more than one of us! Ivanvector I measure right on your side at about 85% and giving Ritchie333 the benefit of the good faith doubt, I still can't award him more than a piddly 15%. I'm sure there's a study I can quote from somewhere that would support my numbers. Whatever else you can argue Ritchie, you can't argue that good manners wouldn't have led you to make that notification up front even if nothing else did. Something to think about. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

That's called a strawman argument, Ritchie333, as I'm sure you know. This is not about anyone being "upset John's unblocked", and Ivan said that from the start. It's about the way you went about it, which was inappropriately ignoring the standard practice and policy guidance, and then continuing to respond inappropriately when your action provoked a negative response. If you're going to ignore clear-cut policy guidance just because you can, whatever, but you should at least have the basic courtesy to rationalize your doing so, rather than coming across as arbitrary at best, and malicious at worst. That's common sense. And, if you fail to do so, and it upsets someone, the natural response is to apologize and then offer up your logical explanation. That's basic communication, basic civility, basic accountability, basic competence. So your refusal to do so is a massive failure on its own merits, but this bizarre behavior, both the things I've already pointed out, and then your reply to me, engaging in shameless pedantry over a policy saying "should" instead of "must" (one of the most infamous, lowest arguments one can invoke), suggesting that I'm "upset" and that this is about the block and not you, telling me to "find an article to improve" (read: "fuck off"), and saying "this discussion is just noise" (read: "IDHT"), you're not even trying to make it look like any of this is in good faith. I honestly don't get it. Talk about "completely out of character", good grief, I thought you were better than this. If you want to be completely unreasonable and uncivil and unaccountable, then I can't control that, but don't blame me for calling you out on it. You're in the wrong here, and your behavior is frankly embarrassing. I hope that even if you will not concede publicly, we will not have to witness more episodes like this going forward. It really is not a good look for yourself or for the admin corps. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

zscaler blocks

There's a discussion over at WP:AN#zscaler_proxies which peripherally mentions you and which you might have an opinion about! --Yamla (talk) 23:18, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Talk2020 Delhi riots

I don't think we can leave an accusation that someone is a murder on the page, I would have Rev/deleted at least part. Doug Weller talk 17:40, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Hmm, I didn't read it closely enough to interpret it as that kind of accusation, but you're right of course. I'll remove it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:53, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Returning Zalgo sock-puppet

Hi,

You blocked OneFortyTwo in June on the Animal source foods article. The same user has returned on a sock Moresdevin. I know its him because he's the only user to repeatedly join Wikipedia to link to the carnivore diet, this was his very first edit [1]. Can you offer your opinion about the case? There is a current SPI [2] Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:06, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Vrahomarinaner sockpuppet

i report for check user some accounts which some are 100% puppets and some probably, and a user removed the case! https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Vrahomarinaner&diff=979565728&oldid=979520057. --2A02:587:4406:72E4:FC0E:7B6A:A48D:4E1E (talk) 14:44, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Mr. Possessive

Variations on this behavior have been going on for two years now with no sign of improvement. I suggest we keep an eye. EEng 04:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

CU Block

Hi - you noted in your close that LoganBlade's block was now a CU block, but the block record doesn't appear to reflect that. Is that logged somewhere else? Perhaps this is something I really ought to know by now, just wanted to check in case it was a mistake. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 17:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I added the sockmaster template to their user page. My understanding is we're not supposed to re-block an account just to note something like that, but I'll ask around and see what the others think. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:34, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

If the circumstances merit it, I'll update a block log to reflect that the block is now a checkuser block using the corresponding drop-down CU template. It's not like you're just noting a minor addendum to the original block, you're a functionary modifying the reason for the block and changing the unblock conditions. This is no different than the arbs noting in the block log that they have modified a block to place it under their discretion.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:49, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

You make a good point as usual. I've updated their block log. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:56, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, what Ponyo said is what I typically do as well. I re-did one or two of the blocks that had already been placed as vandalism-only blocks now listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fire Lord Wan. BTW if the going rate is still $5 for a CU block, I made some good money on that one. Drmies (talk) 19:58, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Ivanvector and I only receive $5 CAD a pop...a mere pittance compared to your bounty. Our free health care softens the blow.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:11, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

You're sure Loganblade ≠ Skiyom? After LoganBlade was reblocked, UTRS appeal #35057 was filed. 😜. I want $10 each time I ban Skiyomi! --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:57, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I was going by notes left on the private wiki, but since you ID'd one of their more recent accounts, they're definitely unrelated. Daredevil Comet matches the info on cuwiki, and LoganBlade is on a different continent. Let me know where to send the bill for my $10. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:59, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

The National Archives IP

Thank you very much indeed for your prompt action on this - very useful to have the exemption. It's been a little while since we ran a public editing event at Kew but I'd hate to think we'd never be in a position to do something similar again so if there's anyway to reduce the breadth of the wider block that would be much appreciated. In the meantime, thanks again for your assistance. --Mr impossible (talk) 14:10, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Za'atar

Hi Ivanvector, regarding your comment about page protection for Za'atar here: [3] Declined - WP:A/I/PIA applies to pages related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, and this article about a plant does not appear to be within that scope. ..., unfortunately za'atar, like hummus, is notably linked to the conflict, for example: [4], [5], [6], etc. Either way though, we should be consistent - if it's not going to be protected, is there some way I can remove the edit notice that says only extended confirmed users are allowed to edit it due to WP:A/I/PIA? I can't figure out how... thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 19:24, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, that's all absurd, but you have a point. I can remove the editnotice, but let me think about it for a bit. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:52, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Ok, sure. Fyi, if it helps, it doesn't seem like there's a lot of consistency. There are a number of food articles with different types of WP:A/I/PIA edit notices, and various combinations of protection levels. And yes, it's all rather absurd. I guess I'd have to say that the za'atar article as a whole shouldn't be under 500/30 / 1RR restrictions. The majority of recent edits have been non-autoconfirmed users randomly switching "Israel" to "Palestine" and vice-versa, so maybe autoconfirmed protection. But you get that in a lot of articles. I wish there was a better edit notice, that would alert people to the discretionary sanctions in the way template:DS/alert does, that can apply to individual edits/editors, without necessarily saying the whole article is strictly under 500/30 / 1RR restrictions. Maybe that's something I could work on.

Here are a few examples:

• Israeli salad - says only 1RR, has extended (500/30) protection
• Arab salad (which is the same thing) - says 500/30 and 1RR, but no protection (like za'atar)
• Hummus - says only 1RR, has autoconfirmed protection
• Falafel - says 500/30 and 1RR, but only applying to a subsection of the article, no protection

--IamNotU (talk) 02:11, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

To Pimp a Butterfly

Pay attention at the article's history because it wasn't me who was edit warring, there's was another editor was edit warring, not me [7] [8] [9] [10]. I only revert those only twice [11] [12] and one of them are not even related [13]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 09:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Vdh m

I should've checked to see if the blocking admin was also a checkuser! In any case, thanks for the ex-ante investigation.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 19:25, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Unblock of Baratiiman

This looks pretty egregious to me. Am I missing something? His explanation didn't make any sense. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:18, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

It's not a very good addition but it was, in a way, factually accurate: the Proud Boys do forbid masturbation, it's in the article already with sources. I unblocked because they tried adding it once, were reverted, and then went to the talk page to discuss, which is exactly what we want editors to do, and they didn't just try to force it in when the change was rejected. They threw me off with their protection request, I'm still working that out with them. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:22, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Hey, Ivanvector. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Megan☺️ Talk to the monster 07:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Kistara

I'm curious about Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kistara. Not that I'm asking you to divulge anything confidential, but what initially clued you that there might be something going on here other than garden variety socking? -- RoySmith (talk) 16:17, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

They showed up while I was checking a completely unrelated case. I don't remember which one now, but I saw all these accounts on the same (probably) IP with the same device, and decided to investigate more. It actually happens quite a bit but they're not clearly doing anything untoward so we assume good faith, but this case was pretty grey-area, and with subject matter (military stuff) that does tend to attract sockpuppets for whatever reason. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:21, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

IP Warning?

Shouldn't 68.50.32.85 (talk · contribs) get a warning for this? Seems odd to rev-delete without letting the contributing user know what they said is best not repeated. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 07:01, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Anti Serbian Sentiment

The lock on the article for vandalism won’t stop the registered vandal (who appears on a anti-Croat streak), just IPs. OyMosby (talk) 19:52, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

ACC

Could I have you stop by ACC and have a look at this request please? -- Amanda (aka DQ) 21:29, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• @AmandaNP: thanks for the note, I've added my feedback. If you need more info it's probably best to email me. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:35, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Could you please have a look at this one too please. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:49, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

@Callanecc: answered. Thanks again. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:10, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Shane Frederick

I just reverted an edit from them on Hearst Television where they changed a bunch of NOTBROKEN wikilinks, and then broke a URL by capitalizing a word; just peering through their latest edits through pop-ups, I'm seeing a lot of the same changes you warned them not to do on the 60h block, suggesting they waited it out and started anew with no lessons learned. Nate • (chatter) 01:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

IP block evasion

• 79.109.6.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 79.109.7.87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 79.109.8.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• ‎79.109.8.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)
• ‎79.109.9.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)
• ‎‎79.109.10.15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)
• ‎79.109.10.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)

You CU-blocked 95.39.211.0/24 (Vodaphone Spain) as a block evader. It's one of the beauty pageant LTAs, I know you won't identify which. Could you look at 79.109.8.13, also Vodaphone, and see if you agree it's likely the same individual? The editing at Miss Earth Poland is especially distinctive: [14][15]. - Bri.public (talk) 18:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Also lately editing beauty pageants from other addresses listed above. - Bri.public (talk) 22:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Miss Earth Slovenia also has an IP CU-blocked by you followed by two of the IPs listed above, making exactly the same edit [16][17][18]. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Asiatech block evader

• 86.57.64.0/18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)

You blocked the address range above as a block evader LTA. I think they are probably back at 86.57.56.189 ☆ Bri (talk) 05:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Evidently I didn't make that block wide enough. Should be handled now. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:03, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Proofread your IP blocks, kids

Thanks for your quick resolution of the ANI case. What – or who – do you mean by “Proofread your IP blocks, kids”? ◅ Sebastian 12:59, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, that was a reference to my own blunder, initially blocking the wrong IP range (93.168 instead of 93.138). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:00, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) NVM – I missed the word “oops” in your edit summary, which made that already clear. ◅ Sebastian 13:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

RFC

Hello, would you be willing to close the RFC at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tropical_cyclones#RFC:_ACE_Calcs? I think a sufficient amount of time has passed since its opening. Noah^Talk 20:34, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@Hurricane Noah: I'd be happy to have a look but I'll likely be away from the computer for the evening, so it could be a while before I get to it. You can list the discussion on the noticeboard at WP:ANRFC if you'd prefer, then other experienced closers will be notified and someone else might get to it before me. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:36, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

IP-hopping editor from Adelaide

Hello Ivan, would you be willing to take a look at WP:ANI#IP-hopping editor from Adelaide and issue an IP range block, if you see fit? ◅ Sebastian 12:48, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Ghgunning

I'm not sure what the rules are exactly about outing in a COI case, but you were right, it is his own website. Well done on the "interleaving edit conflict" by the way, not an easy one to achieve! DuncanHill (talk) 22:34, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

They created an account Ghgunning and used it only to push spam links to a commercial website which says right on the landing page in one of those annoying HTML5 popups that the site is co-run by someone named Graham Gunning. I didn't out them, they outed themselves. I guess it's possible that someone created this account as a joe job but it really just doesn't matter. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:55, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

G6 / CWW

While have no problem with the deletion of the article in itself, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/House of Heyngarten was not a G6 / CWW candidate, as the creator and sole content contributor of both pages was the same. The page should be deleted (or not) on its own merits (G4, hoax, not notable, unverifiable, whatever), this G6 only muddies the waters basically. Fram (talk) 16:11, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Thought I should also note that it wasn't rejected at AfC, had just draftified it and added a note to the author – Thjarkur (talk) 16:19, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for reconsidering and restoring it! Fram (talk) 08:15, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Block Templates

Hi, Ivanvector. I have a question. Is it okay for an editor to remove a block template that was placed on their Talk page by an administrator before the block is lifted? See: [19] I just want to know for sure. Israell (talk) 23:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@Israell: per the user pages policy (section WP:KEEPDECLINEDUNBLOCK) a user is not permitted to remove a declined unblock notice for a currently active block, but they can remove any other message about a block including the block notice. I hope that helps. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

194.214.0.133

Can user:194.214.0.133 please be blocked ASAP CLCStudent (talk) 13:40, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done. It looks like they were trying to make constructive contributions, but in French. Normally I would just leave them a message suggesting they edit French Wikipedia, but they were also doing too much damage. You can use {{contrib-fr1}} and the related series of templates for this, by the way. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:08, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Koavf

Just wondering if you plan to take Koavf to a community noticeboard. I've been holding off interacting with him in anticipation you were. If you're not I don't want to just leave him hanging in terms of my interaction with him. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the prod. Hmm, I'm really on the fence here, but Joe Roe was also suggesting a wider discussion is in order. I'll write something up today. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Question

Would you mind taking a look at this talk page merge reqeust? Not the whole thing, just the final two !votes. They're both made by accounts created in the past few weeks and both have only !voted in military related move/merge/delete proposals. I believe you deal with socking (at the very least, you certainly know more about it than I do) so I thought I would bring to your attention. Sorry if this was the incorrect thing to so. Thanks - wolf 18:46, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

"I think..."

"I think..." and "I feel..." statements are commonly used in therapy to keep participants from framing things as absolutes. (The editor you jumped in to "defend" against "personal attacks") used "I think..." as justification for making a change that he had no substantive basis to make; I was highlighting that, not making a personal attack. 2607:FEA8:BFA0:BD0:2DCD:410D:C3CA:B21C (talk) 18:00, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Suggesting that an editor you are in a dispute with should see a therapist is a personal attack. Do it again and you will be blocked. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:02, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate your zeal, but my ISP spits out new IPs several times a week without any intervention from me. I hope you feel extra powerful, tho. 2607:FEA8:BFA0:BD0:2DCD:410D:C3CA:B21C (talk) 02:05, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Your IP range has already been blocked for spamming in another article. I assume this isn't you, but the point is this can be extended throughout Wikipedia if it becomes necessary. More likely other measures will be tried first like partly range blocking you from the article talk page or if that doesn't work semi protecting the article talk page. No editor has the right to edit Wikipedia, all editors need to obey our policies and guidelines and this includes me, you and Ivanvector. If you continue to make personal attacks, your editing here will be stopped. I'm assuming you are here to try and improve Wikipedia, so if you want to continue to do that, lay off the personal attacks. This statement of mine reflects no feeling of power since I have none. Finally, "I think" is perfectly fine language for Wikipedia since we never deal with absolutes. Indeed any editor should be willing to change their mind, if another editor is able to lay out a convincing argument grounded in our policies guidelines. If this isn't you and instead you insist on absolutes and refuse to change your mind even when someone has laid out a convincing case for change (or non change) backed by our policies and guidelines, then sorry but Wikipedia isn't the place for you. Nil Einne (talk) 16:48, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Nil Einne, the IP editor and I are working through a dispute on another article. That's going reasonably well so I didn't really want to wave the threat of a rangeblock at them, but you're right, it's definitely possible to do so. I'm aware of the Longos block and I'm pretty confident that's related to a known LTA case, and this user doesn't fit the profile at all. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Question 2

Hello again, thanks for looking into that last issue I enquired about (and blocking all those socks as well as the master). I have another issue I wanted to ask about; an editor named "Sterlingmichaels" has so far only made 11 edits, but just looking at the edit summaries in their contribs, there is;

• a deal of all caps 'screaming',
• demands to not touch certain pages,
• an apparent legal threat (or diplomatic threat?),
• a strong case of COI, and
• despite the literal handful of edits, a level of wiki-know/how that may indicate socking or block evasion.

I haven't interacted with this editor, and would't know where to start. I don't wanna just tag-bomb their tp. Could you take a look and let me know if either there is something I should do or, if you are going to take action yourself? Thanks again for your assistance. Cheers - wolf 05:11, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Actually, you can probably disregard the above. Looking again at the dates for the contribs, most of the issues are stale. I suppose if I come across something like this again, I will just report to the most relevant noticeboard for whatever issue is presenting.

That was really just a general admin question, but I would like to keep to specific issue that I'm really unsure handling; socking (like last time). For example, if I come across two accounts ([20] & [21]), both started this year, within a few months of each other, and have only edited the same four articles, what is the best way to proceed? Again, any assistance is appreciated. Cheers - wolf 21:06, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration

Do you think it is wise to send GPinkerton into arbitration at this point? I'm unsure of if they know enough about what ArbCom does do make a cause request that would result in a case being accepted. --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 14:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think there's any other choice. GPinkerton is not the only editor involved in the long-running dispute who has intractible conduct issues, and repeatedly discussing it in open community forums with several admins moderating the talk page has not resulted in any improvement at all. This is as textbook a "conduct dispute that neither community discussion nor administrators have successfully resolved" as I've seen. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:35, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

You might be right that GPinkerton isn't the best one to file a case request, but I'm in no position to take it on myself. I probably shouldn't be on here at all right now, I'm overseeing a significant tech deployment that goes live on Monday morning and still have a lot of work to do to be ready for it, and that will lead into a bunch more work over the next few weeks, on top of our year-end inventory count. I definitely can't do that and monitor an arbcom request. I could maybe take it on in the new year but what do we do in the meantime? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:41, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey, Ivanvector! I'm confused. Why do you think an arbcom case request is a good idea for a not-overly-experienced editor who has been having a difficult time understanding the distinction between discussing content disputes and making personal attacks, doesn't really understand that admins don't get involved in content disputes, and has been bludgeoning discussion at multiple fora? What would you be hoping they'd accomplish with that? To me it seems like they'd be in huge danger of getting sanctioned themselves.

You mentioned a proposed interaction ban; I don't recall it specifically or what if anything I said, but generally I do dislike i-bans except as an absolute last resort. —valereee (talk) 17:38, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

ETA, whoops sorry, adding this to the discussion, which I hadn't seen! —valereee (talk) 17:42, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

IP Block for allegedly adding “unsourced information”

I tried multiple times to add Bluegrass to the genres on the Sturgill Simpson page and quite unreasonably had my ip blocked for a year for this based on the false claim that I added unsourced information. None of the other genres are sourced and now there are two Bluegrass albums attributed to this artist. Here is a quote from the email announcing the newest album proclaiming himself in his own words that Sturgill Simpson is indeed a Bluegrass songwriter.

“But as a benefit of the musicians all getting to know each other and feeling more comfortable, we took more chances and felt more like a band. That gave me the confidence to come in with songs that I was a little more worried how they would translate to bluegrass—but weirdly, it just underscored that, in the end, I guess I’m just a bluegrass songwriter.”

Please take the action of unblocking me. I cannot think of any other sources that would be necessary but I will gladly dig deeper into interviews and reviews of the albums to prove my case.

Thank you for your time. If you disagree I am happy to engage further. Verity43 (talk) 06:56, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@Verity43: please add this to discussion on the article's talk page. Wikipedia works by consensus, which in a nutshell means that editors agree on article content. While we encourage bold editing, all information must be verifiable, and the burden is on the editor whose addition has been challenged to demonstrate verifiability by citing a reliable source. This requirement is stronger for information on living persons, and Wikipedia's music articles have a long history of problems with editors fighting over genres specifically. You did not provide a source when asked, you just kept adding the information back after it was removed, and since we have a policy forbidding edit warring, you were blocked from editing the article. However you are not blocked from editing the talk page, and if you want to add this information, that is where you should start. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:32, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. I copied and pasted this and added it. I am new to all of this. It seems that whoever was “warring” with me is tied up in the media calling him a bluegrass artist with no regard for the artist’s opinion of himself. Which seems nonsensical. Verity43 (talk) 15:00, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

New sockpuppet

Hi. User Arthur Brum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Arthur_Brum)/[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Arthur_Brum/Archive) created another sockpuppet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/RealityIllusion. Please check. 177.142.41.77 (talk) 20:31, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

@177.142.41.77: looks like DrKay already got 'em. Please don't spam messages like this to multiple admins, it's better to just make a report at SPI. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:09, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Fishing industry

Would you please source the additions you recently made to this article. Thanks — Epipelagic (talk) 23:22, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Can do! I pulled everything from references at Turbot War, it's normally sufficient (by policy) to refer to the existing sources, but I'll see what I can do for inline references. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:33, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

New IP for 194.223.46.197

Hi! I see you blocked 194.223.46.197, just a quick notice that the user seems to edit now with a new IP: 194.223.45.89. Best, --MarioGom (talk) 20:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Partial blocks become meaningless with deletion

Hi Ivanvector, I just tested something using User:ToBeFree (mobile) (see the account's latest deleted contributions): When an article is deleted, the partial block remains visibly in place, but completely loses its effect. The user can re-create the page, the user can edit the re-created page. Just so you know, because I didn't, regarding Akhil Bharatiya Kshatriya Mahasabha. Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Hm, interesting. I wonder if that's intentional? I think I'll make a post at VPT to ask. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

A few minutes after writing the message, I noticed that this probably should be documented and reported, but the village pump didn't come to my mind – thank you very much :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:43, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Just because you deserve something nice for all the great work you do here, and because I hope it brightens your day. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

A beer for you!

I saw this and thought you could use some liquid reassurance. Thanks for your assistance here. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

I saw your request on BN, hopefully you'll find an better place.

Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 13:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

So sorry

I just came across this & I’m very sorry to hear about that. A better job would come your way. Celestina007 (talk) 18:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• Likewise. I was shocked to see your name on a list of desysops, though I'm hopeful we'll have you back soon. So sorry to hear about the work situation. --BDD (talk) 17:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Notice of ArbCom discussion

Hi, just making you aware that Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Syrian_Kurdistan exists, since you commented on the issues raised there and advised on an ArbCom request. GPinkerton (talk) 11:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

marquinhos Spi page .

marquinhos is trolling the Wikipedia sockpuppet investigation page again. If you look at the history its the same sporadic writing style and admits to being in Brazil to. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jack90s15&diff=996984890&oldid=996983512 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jack90s15&action=history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MarquinhosWikipediano — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.88.245.189 (talk) 23:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Change to the Checkuser team

Following a request to the Committee, the CheckUser permissions of Ivanvector (talk · contribs) have been restored. For the Arbitration Committee, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Change to the Checkuser team

Faith Goldy

[22] - incomplete sentence at the end, which was just removed. I'm sure you meant to say more! Doug Weller talk 17:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! No, I think that was something I started writing but decided not to include because it was too in-the-weeds about Steve King and wasn't really relevant to Goldy's bio. I'm not sure how it ended up where it did but removing it was correct. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 17:33, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for removing the SPA tag. That editor and I have been in discussion for awhile recently on various topics, so I was surprised by the tag, and uncertain why the editor applied it. --2603:7000:2143:8500:DC79:4CC3:DC44:71FA (talk) 19:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Canada 10,000 Challenge award (fourth year)

		The Red Maple Leaf Award
		This maple leaf is awarded to Ivanvector for creating two PEI articles during the fourth year of The 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Reidgreg (talk) 19:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Kurds and Kurdistan 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/Kurds and Kurdistan. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 5, 2021, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 16:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: You've said you are busy and might not contribute, but the workshop phase closes today, so if you're going to comment on this case which you advised me to lodge it should be done today. GPinkerton (talk) 16:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Template:History of the Philippines

Hello Ivanvector. I recently made a request for the reduction of this template's protection level but it got denied. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 08:48, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@HueMan1: I'm sorry to say I agree. Philippine history topics have been targeted by a long-term vandal for many years, and they learned years back that if they vandalize the template, it propagates to the hundred-or-so pages it appears on. If you have an edit to suggest on the template, you can request it on the template's talk page with the {{edit template-protected}} template. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:48, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: Can we at least reduce the level of protection to extended confirmed users? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 13:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

And oh, my request was denied because I was not able to consult you first before making it. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 13:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

A minor issue

I wasn't sure how to address this, or whether to address it at all, but since you strike me as a thoughtful, conscientious type who would probably prefer to be apprised here it is. At ANI you recently wrote, I truly believe that EEng is a smart person, is capable of grasping how this incident was a misstep, and is capable of taking on these comments and addressing this situation more respectfully in the future. However, what EEng has repeatedly demonstrated he does not understand (or that he doesn't care) is that his many followers are not so capable, and will follow his cruel example. This idea of "followers", which others have jokingly referred to as a "brigand", is pretty risible, but asserting that such editors are incapable of grasping the seriousness of the situation and they will knowingly or unknowingly follow his bad example (I'm paraphrasing, obviously) is a bit sanctimonious and pretty insulting. I'm too thick-skinned to be offended by it personally, but I thought you might appreciate being prompted to reflect on it a bit. That's all. Regards, nagualdesign 18:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Clarification about The C of E's discussion

Thank you for closing the discussion about The C of E. I was just wondering: given the lack of discussion regarding Serial Number's comments, as well as how late they came, do you think it would be appropriate if a new discussion specifically about what to do with The C of E's restrictions (i.e if they need to be extended or the status quo could remain) could be started, or has that ship sailed by now? Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:41, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: I'm of two minds about this. For one, it's really not fair to hang the threat of sanctions over an editor's head like was done here, not that it's any one editor's fault how this was handled. But imagine you make what you think is a reasonable ban appeal, and the discussion turns in such a way that you're now facing the prospect of even more serious sanctions, but every day for a whole month you log in to Wikipedia and find that a decision still hasn't been made. Nobody deserves that. On the other hand, it's clear from all the discussions that editors see C of E's behaviour at DYK as quite serious, especially when the topic involves living persons, and many editors (often different editors between discussions) have commented that further sanctions are warranted and/or that the current restrictions aren't preventing the harmful behaviour. I really thought about dropping a BLP ban as arbitration enforcement, but I think that's too close to being a supervote given the discussion.

Protecting Wikipedia from publishing harmful material about living persons is of utmost importance, but The C of E is also a living person, and this whole experience has no doubt been stressful. I can't tell you not to start a discussion, but personally I would let it be for now, because the ordeal might just have knocked enough sense into C of E to behave. If it didn't, I can find the block button pretty fast. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Ivanvector, I have a dog-related question for you

Like I’ve asked on my talk page, do Norwich Terriers come from Norwich, or somewhere else in England? This is not explained on the Norwich Terrier article, but should be, as it gets a little confusing after some time.

Thank you.

Answermeplease11 (talk) 18:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC) Answermeplease11

@Answermeplease11: According to our article, they were first bred in the late 1800s as a cross which included an unnamed breed of terrier commonly used by ratters in Norfolk (see the closely related breed Norfolk Terrier), although they didn't get the name "Norwich" until they were imported to the United States after World War I. So yes, it does seem that they come from Norwich, and I think it's explained as well as it needs to be in the article.

Thanks for your question. In the future, if you're looking for more information like this on a topic, you should make a post at the reference desk, rather than posting on article talk pages or asking individual editors. You'll get a faster and more complete response there. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:32, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Observations

Hi. Per your ANI closure, I was wondering if you could please clarify the following for me:

1. "(Lugnuts) when challenged, deflects this responsibility to other reviewers or the community at large. " - Where have I ever stated or done this?
2. "a right granted when one demonstrates competence to review one's own work (a responsibility Lugnuts has declined to accept)" - Where was this point made, and where did I decline to accept it?

I'd also be grateful if you could remove/hide the second part of the closure comment linking to WP:emergency as it seems crass, at least in my eyes. I don't wish to make a big deal out of this, but I thought it was important I commented on these two points post-close.

One final comment - what is the process/timespan to get the autopatrolled rights restored? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Lugnuts. I'm at work and can't respond in detail but I'll write you a better response this evening. I didn't mean for it to be crass and certainly am not casting judgement or anything like that, I just meant it as a reminder to other editors that none of us are trained nor expected to respond to mental health crises, and referring to the WMF's process. I'll remove it right away anyway. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 12:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: I promised to respond yesterday but the day got away from me; my apologies.

First off, when I close a discussion I try my best to reflect the views expressed by the participants without bias, while considering how strongly the various arguments are rooted in policy and convention, although of course it's my own words. This discussion was difficult because there were a lot of participants, several proposals, several tangents, references to past discussions, and many comments that had no grounding in policy and were just editors' opinions on how things should be, plus an inappropriate close and a reopening that shouldn't have happened in the way that it did. That all led to my closing comments being unconventionally long. I also tend to be wordy, just ask anyone who's ever received an email from me.

The discussion was closed inappropriately around 1 April, and while that close was clearly inappropriate, I don't agree with Swarm reopening it a full eight days later, as though the discussion could just resume at that point. I took everything said after that with a grain of salt, but I put a lot of weight on your exchange with GirthSummit where you were obviously recognizing the concerns raised earlier.

On both of your points, it's not so much that you said exactly this, not that someone said "these are your responsibilities" and you said "no they're not", that clearly didn't happen. But early in the discussion you responded to some criticisms of the pace of your page creations with a challenge that if there were problems with your creations then other editors should point them out, fix them, or go through deletion processes themselves, and several editors called you out on that. A specific concern expressed by many participants was that you were creating pages too quickly for any reasonable review to happen, not by yourself and especially not by any normal editorial process as your creations skip the patrol queue. You can see there are a number of comments supporting a rate limit on your article creations, a requirement to have all your new articles pass through AfC, or an outright page creation ban, all because you're creating articles that fail third-party verification.

In my opinion, you're correct that the SNGs as written allow this, and I said so in the cricket discussion. However, I get the distinct sense from this discussion more than the previous ones that the community is exhausted by your reliance on that when you rapidly create many thousands of articles, when so many people see problems with the SNGs and have pointed this out to you. On one hand it's not fair to put the responsibility for poorly written guidelines entirely on you, but on the other hand it's not fair to be repeatedly told that mass-creation of poor quality articles puts undue burden on the community (my words) yet continue to do it because it's technically allowed. You were even continuing to do it while sanctions were being discussed for that exact activity, and some commenters found that disrespectful (my word again).

In the end, I landed on removing autopatrolled but taking no further action, because I felt that was the easiest way to reflect the community's desire to review your new articles while still letting you actually create them, and not setting up a more severe sanction for activity that isn't expressly forbidden.

As for timeline to restore that userright, I purposely do not set time limits on such things without a good reason. This isn't meant to be a prison sentence, it's meant to halt disruption (sorry I don't have a better word for it) until such time as you can demonstrate it's no longer necessary. I mentioned your comments to GirthSummit late in the discussion - I think it's highly in your favour that you (eventually) acknowledged some of the problems, and certainly to your credit that you committed to replacing the unreliable source you used for the 4,000-or-so Turkish places articles you created. I don't think you should ask for the userright back until that's done, at least, but I really can't say how much longer. Several people suggested this information would be better off as a list, and I think you should consider that - remember that you can create several thousand redirects to such lists and generally nobody will say a word, just don't be Neelix. I think if you have any plans to mass-create stubs in any other topics which are little more than statistical information, it will work greatly in your favour if you discuss it at the relevant WikiProject before starting the work. These are just suggestions for things you might do to demonstrate you're listening to the community's feedback when you request the userright back, maybe along with working the NPP and AFC queues as more evidence of your review work.

I'm starting to write in circles I think and I should stop, but I hope you find some of this helpful. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 01:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the response. It seems that WP has shifted its focus to saying things are "poor quality" (your words) over and above notabilty (my words). And rather than take action on a rewrite of policy and/or SNGs in realtion to stubs, the target has become those who create stubs in the first place, and make them the scapegoat. EVERYTHING I've created has been within the terms of the required notabilty for the subject area, which is a binary meets/does not meet, whereas "poor quality" in itself is such a poor quality term it becomes vexatious.

I've created a few dozen stubs since the user-rights were removed. All of them have been reviewed, with no issues. As of typing this, I believe a couple are still in the queue to be assessed. The irony being that the "burden on the community" (your words) has now moved to people who review that queue. Without trying to single out another editor, stuff like this and this goes through with no review. Are those examples of good quality or poor quality?

I hate to be even more cynical than I normally am, but working the NPP and AFC queues smacks of being setup to fail. I can imagine the vultures circling now if I made the wrong choice on a review or two. "Who did that?" "It was Lugnuts." "Right, take him to ANI for WP:DE and a block!" Finally, and most importantly, my time here is spent on areas that interest me. If people want to put little tags on my work, which adds to other backlogs, then that's their prerogative. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:01, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Caillou Pettis article creation

Greetings,

Is there any way a page could be created for film critic Caillou Pettis? He is a multi-media writer covering film, music, television, and video games, and his work spans multiple high-profile publications such as Exclaim!, Gigwise, Beats Per Minute, Film Threat, and Flickering Myth. He is also a critic on Rotten Tomatoes.

There's a couple of news articles talking about his directorial efforts as well. I noticed the page was on lock for creation, hence the request. The last time the page was attempted to be created was in 2018. In three years, his work has spanned across plenty more well-known websites and his music reviews are also featured on Metacritic and AnyDecentMusic?. If critics such as Bilge Ebiri and Alonso Duralde can have articles made with fewer references, then Pettis should be able to have a page as well.

Ivan, you might want to take a look at this and their hundreds of globally locked socks before this request is considered. TAXIDICAE💰 16:59, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

User talk:176.123.13.14

Hi Ivanvector, your feedback would be welcome at User talk:176.123.13.14. Thank you very much in advance and best regards ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:18, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I responded on the talk page. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 19:40, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

IP sock

Another I B Wright IP, from which they've been editing for over a week at 86.132.158.45. You confirmed the last one I saw pop up at ANI, so bringing this one directly to you. Grandpallama (talk) 00:28, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Another one at 148.252.128.108 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) continuing the same discussion as 86.132.158.45 on the Phoebus cartel talk page. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:02, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 14:13, 23 May 2021 (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: the best trout I had ever eaten was near Machu Pichu (Peru), and my curiosity about your talk page makes me chatting here. I would like to discuss about the behaviour of an User you have recently downgraded. If I add some (good) info on pages he created, he REVERTs all, and start edit-war because he says he knows more than me the rules of WP. In a very rude way. Recently he was very rude with a non native English speaker from Bangladesh, too. Where could I complain about his attitude?

Arorae (talk) 18:36, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

AwesomePro50

fyi, AwesomePro50 is back, same disruptive edits. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:18, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Roman Protasevich on a "Politics, government, and law" 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 19:30, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

re. World Football Elo Ratings

After you semi-protected that page, and after a consensus was reached via RfC to not include excessive statistical tables, Special:Contributions/Txikon first came and restored the content, and when provided with an explicit link to the RfC, decided instead to restore the content to their user page... That seems like a rather obvious misuse of user space and also a content fork against community consensus. Anything to be done here, or should we just act with "bigger fish to fry" in mind? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:56, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: generally, drafting in userspace is fine if there aren't any other issues. I might suggest they create a subpage instead of drafting on their user page, otherwise he history may need to be split if the draft is promoted. I'll take a closer look when I'm at a computer. From memory, I think reproducing these ratings here may have been a borderline copyvio if they're based on a proprietary algorithm, but I may have been shouted down on that. I would be suspicious of COI here, but I don't think the recreation in and of itself is problematic - there hasn't been a formal deletion discussion as far as I know and I wouldn't call this a NOTWEBHOST violation. You could take it to MfD, but without investigating further I'm leaning towards letting it be. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 10:33, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think they're "drafting in userspace". They're using their user page to host material which has been removed from an existing page by nearly unanimous consensus. Of course, an RfC isn't quite a formal deletion discussion (it has at least 2/3rds of the elements, though, and maybe the third one depending on your interpretation of the RfC question...). Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Invitation for Functionary consultation 2021

Greetings,

I'm letting you know in advance about a meeting I'd like to invite you to regarding the Universal Code of Conduct and the community's ownership of its future enforcement. I'm still in the process of putting together the details, but I wanted to share the date with you: 27 June, 2021. I do not have a time on this date yet, but I will let you soon. We have created a meta page with basic information. Please take a look at the meta page and sign up your name under the appropriate section.

Thank you for your time.--BAnand (WMF) 15:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

A banned user is back!

I note that a banned editor (Cheesy McGhee) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cheesy_McGee is defying the ban by utilising numerous 'sock accounts' to continue to 'edit' his regular pages in his usual, POV, disruptive style. I expect he's not the only 'editor' attempting to circumvent a ban in this manner - but I thought I should bring it to your attention!
Woodlandscaley (talk) 20:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Woodlandscaley. Thank you for bringing this to my attention, but how do you know that they're using sockpuppets to edit? I unfortunately won't be able to investigate unless you can show me the suspect edits. Thanks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

The contents of the following are, I strongly suspect, from Cheesy McGhee. The timing, content, language used etc. is all consistent with his style.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A02:C7F:CED:0:F4A7:AF61:8692:178D https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A02:C7F:CED:0:5820:98C:723B:405E https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A02:C7F:CED:0:E8A8:D0B4:E5A8:2B4D https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A02:C7F:CED:0:794C:C696:C845:749F https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A02:C7F:CED:0:EDAD:15A7:97F4:ACCB https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A02:C7F:CED:0:CDD1:96FF:AF71:9B30 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A02:C7F:CED:0:B4CB:A872:B4EC:465D https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A02:C7F:CED:0:51F3:913E:6787:C103 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A02:C7F:CED:0:89:8D4:71F0:1767

Woodlandscaley (talk) 06:33, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, obvious, because the article that the IP " has been working on for some time", and is complaining about being turned into a redirect (2021–22 Inverness Caledonian Thistle F.C. season) is one of Cheesy McGee's.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:44, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Modulus12 (talk) 21:09, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

List of Perry Mason episode murderers

I counter that your blanking of it is out-of-process speedy deletion.

Strange. I would have thought an administrator would be familiar with the concepts of "forking", "consensus", and "gaming the system" -- especially that first one, in this case. --Calton | Talk 05:59, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@Calton: I don't care about this at all. Quit wasting your time arguing technicalities and take it to AFD already. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 10:20, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

$uicideboy$

Hi, what do you think about unprotecting $uicideboy$? You protected it after creating it saying that people had been creating duplicate articles, but I can't see any instance of this. Anarchyte (talk) 15:07, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Anarchyte. Check the protection log and deleted contribs at the redirect and you'll see why it was protected. There's also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/$uicideboy$ although that's not really related to the protection. The article at the stylized title was re-created and deleted five times between February and July 2016 before RHaworth salted that title. About two years later it was recreated as a draft and passed AfC, although the reviewer was later found to be a sockpuppet of a banned user, but nobody else has objected in that time so it's probably fine. About a year after that an editor posted an unprotection request at RfPP to create the redirect from the stylized name, which was still protected, and I thought that was a reasonable request but also that the protection was warranted, so I created the protected redirect for them.

Since the article has already been created there's probably no cause for concern now that a duplicate would be created at this title, so if you want to unprotect it that's fine with me. I don't think Roger would object either, but you could ask him if you're concerned. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:03, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I did see most of that, and I meant that I couldn't see any abuse in the time between the creation of Suicideboys and $uicideboy$. I'll unprotect and watchlist the page. Anarchyte (talk) 16:09, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

On the Persian Sea redirection

Hey there @Ivanvector. If I understood you correctly, in the redirection discussion you meant that from the Dispute over the name of the Persian Gulf article you've found evidence that refers to the Arabian Sea as the Persian Sea? I was just interested in knowing which source (or part) you were referring to. — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad ^{(💬 Talk)} 21:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@A Contemporary Nomad: and the squirrel: You may both be interested in my contribution to this fun debate at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 6. Or you might not :-) Regards, Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:59, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

SPI

I object to this purely spiteful behvaior: if you don't want to do it, don't do it, but instead of closing it (preventing anyone else from acting on it) you could equally well have said "Thanks JBL for providing the requested information" and done it while ignoring DE. --JBL (talk) 10:56, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks very much for reconsidering, I appreciate it. (The level of grouchiness on display in that SPI was unfortunate, and I also think it's weird that DE didn't just block the IP himself.) Incidentally, I just realized that there's a pun in your username (only afterwards discovering that it is explained on your userpage) and was tickled :). Be well, JBL (talk) 18:03, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

777 Charlie

Would it be possible to remove the administrator access required for creating 777 Charlie. There is a very promising draft at Draft:777 Charlie which I plan on moving to mainspace. Jupitus Smart 14:07, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@Jupitus Smart: if AFC approves then I have no objection. Will be done by the time you read this. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:37, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello brother I think you didn’t check the person about whom I wrote that article

Hello, dear Afrin Sultana Laboni known as Priyo Moni is a Bangladeshi actress. She joined in miss world Bangladesh 2018 and enlisted in top ten finalist. Then she acted in "Valobasar Projapati" movie and "Kosahi(2021)" directed by Anonno Mamun. She got Miss Best Behavior Award in Miss World Bangladesh 2018. She acted in many music videos also. And as an actress, all the notability criteria she meets. I hope you will check again and will remove the deletion tag. Thanks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afrin_Sultana_Laboni

@Itsyourimran: Deletion tags cannot be removed while the deletion discussion is ongoing, and removing the tag does not stop the discussion. After seven days, an uninvolved closer will evaluate the deletion discussion and determine what action is required. You should make your comments in that discussion, as I really cannot help you. If you want more information on that process, please see WP:AFD.

Your comments make it seem as though you are in close contact with the person who you are writing about, which we consider a conflict of interest. If you are being paid to write about this person then you are also in violation of Wikipedia's terms of use, as we require that you say if you are being paid for any edit you make. Please see WP:PAYDISCLOSE. Please see the notes that have already been left on your talk page, and decide how you would like to proceed. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:32, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Help

Hi, Ivanvector. Lugnuts has once again started bothering me and stalking my edits. When I requested for pending changes review, he again commented on that archived matter (socking), see [23]. Don't really understand what is matter of "caution" here, he already knows under which condition I am unblocked. Is it an offence for me to make request for user rights only because I was once blocked? I have just nothing to say to Lugnuts, without asking him not to bother. Thanks. — A.A Prinon  ^{Leave a dialogue} 12:30, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Don't I at least deserve a second chance? — A.A Prinon  ^{Leave a dialogue} 12:32, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

For balance, another editor has also voiced their concerns about the OP's request for pending changes. Prinon conveniently forgot to show this diff of the conversation ("Please stop this fucking around attitude") which they reposted on my talkpage, dispite multiple requests not to post on my userpage. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:20, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Lugnuts, They haven't voiced their concerns about socking. They were just saying that if I am still eligible to be a reviewer or not. It doesn't matter if my request is declined, I will be able to request again in the future as I am enjoying editing and hope to stay here long. And you asked that why I have posted on your talk page despite being told to stop. Now my question to you is- Why are you still bothering me despite being told to stop? And still not understanding what are "caution"s by you here. — A.A Prinon  ^{Leave a dialogue} 15:27, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

And you have mistakenly spelled the word "despite". — A.A Prinon  ^{Leave a dialogue} 15:53, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Listen, Lugnuts. Its completely upon your wish on bothering me about socking, but I am telling you to stop for your betterment. Because, these are now not needed. I am happy now being unblocked, and will remain happy by making constructive and useful edits on Wikipedia fairly without any misusing or illegitimate activities. And I myself know very well that I had never edited with any other account before Cambria Math was created. So, it would save your time if you stop thinking about cautions regarding "how I am familiar with most Wikipages including user rights pages despite being new user?" Best if you find something better to do with your time and don't bother me again. Despite this, if you are still not trusting me and want to bother me, you may do so. But those will just be your waste of time in opening investigations. Thanks. — A.A Prinon  ^{Leave a dialogue} 16:20, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I've asked you multiple times not to ping me, so please stop. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:21, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I won't ping you, but please first read what I am saying, will be better for clarifying. I don't want to offend you, I don't that you consider me as your enemy. — A.A Prinon  ^{Leave a dialogue} 16:23, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

• @A.A Prinon and Lugnuts: apologies that I was slow to respond to this, I was evicted recently and was moving over the weekend, and only got internet hooked up on Monday and only found my laptop charger yesterday. Seddon advised that you both ought to keep distance from each other on Wikipedia and I second that sentiment: it's fine and understandable and expected that you won't get along with everyone, but it's a problem when that starts causing disruption for other users. A.A Prinon, I think you should take Fram and Seddon's feedback as genuine, and not take offence. Fram can be blunt but they've been around here a long time and what they say is usually right, even if it does sometimes come across kind of rude. It was a bit premature for you to request that userright given the recent mistakes that Fram pointed out, but that's no reason why you should not keep doing the work you've been doing, and request again after you have more experience. Administrators who grant permissions have a responsibility to only grant those permissions to users who are ready for them, and we can be held responsible if we give a permission to a user who then uses it incorrectly. You definitely should not be offended that some more experienced editors think you're not ready yet. All of us who edit here have had to go through some kind of time building experience like this at one time or another before getting into more advanced areas. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 13:13, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

  PEIsquirrel, I am not displeased because they doubt if I am eligible or not. But, Lugnuts is always just saying about that archived matter and without any reason saying here "caution". I really don't understand can't they really understand my language as I have multiple times told them not to bother me. But he is still continuing battleground attitude with me. Would like to draw your attention that Lugnuts also yesterday made silly edit wars with me at Shamim Hossain, for which they were also once blocked. This is a "crazy" or "infantile" attitude to say at least. — A.A Prinon  ^{Leave a dialogue} 13:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

A rangeblock...

Can this rangeblock be loosened to anon-only? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 15:25, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

• @Jpgordon: at a glance I would say no, I can see which long-term sockmaster was using this in December and would prefer if this range were completely closed off to them, but I see there's a different user also trying to use it who I think is also a sockpuppeteer but not the same one. I'll have a look and give you a better answer later today when I can use my admin account securely. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 13:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Jpgordon: I've reduced the block to anon-only. I prefer if account creation remains disabled, the target sockmaster is known to create new accounts on any IP they can access and then edit through the anonblocks. Thanks for checking. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:41, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

  Sounds right to me, thanks. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 18:34, 26 June 2021 (UTC)