User talk:Ivanvector/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

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

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pakistani politics 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 16:30, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

204.193.117.66

204.193.117.66 is the Sarasota County Public Library system (and possibly other facilities managed by the Sarasota County Board of County Commissioners), it is not Sarasota County Public Schools. I know this because 1. I work for Sarasota County Schools and that's on a different /24 range (which produces a mixed bag of edits) and 2. I've personally used this shared IP address (I log into my account from the library, so any edits you see without the use of CheckUser are not me unless there's been a time I forgot to sign in or made a very minor edit I didn't think was worth logging in to make, such as fixing a blatant typo). Note that I'm not contesting the block as more recent vandalism from it has been persistent. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 03:12, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Turbofuture.com as source

I saw the Turbofuture.com article you found about the Ligma joke and I read this about turbofuture.com: Wikipedia talk:Spam blacklist/Archive 2 The site appeared to have an editorial team and policies to ensure quality and accuracy so I thought maybe it was being unfairly blacklisted as being associated with HubPages. But then I clicked on some of the other ones: reelrundown.com, tatring.com, owlcation.com and they also have an editorial team--the exact same team for each one. So I think the mistrust of it as an RS is warranted. BBQboffin (talk) 19:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@BBQboffin: yeah I read the same things, basically everything in the HubPages universe is under the same scrutiny, and deservedly. Personally I think it's an overreach to have them on the spam blacklist, though - the spam blacklist is meant for links and sites which are frequently added as spam; it's not meant for blacklisting unreliable sources. OpIndia is blacklisted for different (and good) reasons, but even sources we say to never use (like the Daily Mail) are usually not blacklisted. HubPages probably should just have a "generally unreliable" label at WP:RSNP, but I don't really have the energy to take that on right now. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:01, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Warning after reverting edits

Hello, I saw that you reverted the good faith edits of an editor but forgot to leave a message on their talk page. It is extremely important to do so when the reverted edits are in good faith. Thank you -- Cosmic6811 🍁 (T · C) 19:19, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

@Cosmic6811: Thanks for your note, I appreciate you reaching out. Our generally-accepted essay on the topic, WP:REVEXP, directs to explain reverts in edit summaries, which I do by practice and did here, unless the rationale for reverting is so complex as to require a detailed explanation on a talk page. The requirement to provide reliable sources for new and especially for contentious information is one of Wikipedia's best-known fundamental policies so I don't think that any additional explanation is necessary, but I could have linked to the guideline.

In this case in particular, I have reason to believe that this is not a new editor and that the edits were not in good faith, but rather a returning user pushing a non-neutral point of view with information that has no source, so I spent much less time trying to explain things than I might have for a newly-created account. As personal practice I do normally leave a notice like the one you left for the IP editor when a new account makes this kind of mistake.

Cheers -- Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:19, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh ok -- Cosmic6811 🍁 (T · C) 00:36, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war 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 17:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

HumilatedGoan‎

Hi, I've noticed you editing the above user's Talk page. Have you looked at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BlueFreee? Depending on the results, a check might obviate an appeal. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that, no. I'm in the middle of transferring their appeal to ARCA but I'll take a look at that first. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:59, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks very much.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:35, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Blame the spript

Definitely a malfunction, not user error in any way... Girth Summit _(blether) 16:14, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

The sincerest form of flattery

I'm assuming this wasn't you creating an alt: User:.lvanvector. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:16, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Nope, not me, thanks for acting on it. All my alts are listed on my user page, along with a note saying any other account claiming to be me should be blocked immediately. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Deletion review for Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Chaseline

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Chaseline. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

WikiProject Canada 10,000 Challenge seventh anniversary

		The Bronze Maple Leaf Award
		This maple leaf is awarded to Ivanvector for writing the biography Henry Ketchum during the seventh year of The 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Reidgreg (talk) 14:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

oops

sorry for the rollback, finger slipped DrowssapSMM (talk) (contributions) 15:07, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

No problem, it happens. I have to apologize for one about once a week. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:52, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Shaheen Sayyed

I hope this warning wasn't intended for me? The first speedy nomination was by User:Liz, and the second was by an anon editor in India, who also posted here about it. Wikishovel (talk) 15:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

@Wikishovel: it was a general note, not intended for you specifically. I'm pretty sure that the IP is the page creator editing logged out (I have not checked and wouldn't be allowed to confirm anyway), and was trying to revert Liz adding the tag but didn't see that Ritchie333 already removed it, so they restored it inadvertently. Anyway, I've come across this behaviour especially from AFC reviewers where if one speedy criterion is declined then they try a different one, or just repost the same one and hope a different administrator sees it, and that's not how speedy deletion is supposed to work. You were obviously not doing that.

Given how this sockmaster seems intent on repeatedly recreating the same articles (they're very likely being paid to create them) I think it's worthwhile for the subjects to be reviewed at AFD and deemed non-notable, then if anyone else recreates them they're eligible for G4 deletion even if the subject tries to hire someone else to write their bio. Sort of killing two birds with one stone. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Slovak Slovenia

The page Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Slovak Slovenia has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category had been empty for seven days or more and was not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may have become empty on occasion.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Deletion review for Bharat(India)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Bharat(India). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 01:25, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

MY RESPONSE

Please go through my response. I strongly suggest WP:VERIFY for edits made Sutyarashi and one good reason from him as to why exactly he is misquoting Angluish on pages like Sultanate of Swat , Shilmani, Swati tribe, even Shahmiri dynasty and Pashtunization process.I would be one of many he has reported to be blocked and passing derogatory remarks on authors like Raverty, and others while seems okay with Rajatarangini which under Wikipedia policy is also Primary Source. Azmarai76 (talk) 18:55, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Editor experience invitation

Hi Ivanvector :) I'm looking for people to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:16, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Are you supporting RAJ times references

I see you have reverted changes proposed by Sutyarashi to you. Is Leitner not RAJ times source??? That you want to stay at Dardic languages page. Azmarai76 (talk) 09:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Please you can check this suppected sock?

@Ivanvector, Uzer:Parihar Piyush was blocked 18 days ago by Vanjagenije as a sock of Master Pranay Chopde now he came back again with new account Uzer:Sanjay Thakur Pawar([1])

'1__Piyush Parihar edit page Mahalakadeva at 14th November (2) and Sanjay Thakur Pawar edited same page 8 hours ago see (3]) both accounts also made edits on page Powari language see (4/ 5) even further both accounts made edits at page Bhoyari see (6 \7) 2404:3100:189F:93F4:1:0:4A7F:4B94 (talk) 22:31, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Please, make a report at WP:SPI. Thanks! Vanjagenije (talk) 12:55, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

History of Iran, hello please you can make a request at WP:SPI as I don't know how to make such requests.? Please all the similarities are mentioned even other blocked sock related to master Pranay Chopde also make edits to the same pages with same edit behavior and sumaries. 223.123.9.99 (talk) 19:20, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:René Lévesque 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 16:31, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2023).

Administrator changes

• Ganesha811
• JPxG

• Ajpolino
• Lourdes
• Mairi
• RockMFR
• Somno
• WilyD

Beeblebrox → Just Step Sideways

CheckUser changes

• Beeblebrox
• Opabinia regalis

Oversight changes

• Beeblebrox
• Opabinia regalis

Guideline and policy news

• Following a talk page discussion, the Administrators' accountability policy has been updated to note that while it is considered best practice for administrators to have notifications (pings) enabled, this is not mandatory. Administrators who do not use notifications are now strongly encouraged to indicate this on their user page.

Arbitration

• Following a motion, the Extended Confirmed Restriction has been amended, removing the allowance for non-extended-confirmed editors to post constructive comments on the "Talk:" namespace. Now, non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace solely to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided that their actions are not disruptive.
• The Arbitration Committee has announced a call for Checkusers and Oversighters, stating that it will currently be accepting applications for CheckUser and/or Oversight permissions at any point in the year.
• Eligible users are invited to vote on candidates for the Arbitration Committee until 23:59 December 11, 2023 (UTC). Candidate statements can be seen here.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:54, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pirjhando

Hi Ivanvector. Hope you are doing well. There is a SPA with COI on Sayyid Ihsanullah Shah Rashdi and Badi' ud-Din Shah al-Rashidi. Both are in AfD. Can you please look into this on priority as most of the translations on the AfD seem to rely solely on their input/word and they have denied COI. I had a discussion with Vanamonde93 here regarding the same. Thank you. Jeraxmoira (talk) 19:01, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I'll take a look this evening if nobody gets to it before me, but my laptop battery is about to run out and I don't have the charger with me. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:04, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

No worries, please take your time. Your help is appreciated whenever you're able to look into it. Thanks again! <3 Jeraxmoira (talk) 19:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

How should we deal with this?

Hi Ivanvector! I want to bring this to your attention that there is a very explicit case of meat-puppetry going on with regards to Bangladesh liberation war-related articles. Wiki.arfazhxss posted a thread on reddit 3 days ago to recruit editors to edit the articles and join talk page discussions to support him in his POV disputes, especially on Bangladesh genocide and Rape during Bangladesh liberation war. Also see this comment by him on that thread. As he got blocked for edit warring yesterday, the meat-puppets began to continue the disruptions on his behalf. One of them admitted being recruited from that thread and also said there are other forums where they are trying such recruitments. I posted notices about this meat-puppetry on article talk pages affected but now those meats are even removing those notices from the talk pages [2]. I'm refraining from reverting them as you earlier warned me of edit-warring but I think this now requires administrative action, especially since Wiki.arfazhxss will be soon returning from his block and will rally these meats to cause such disruptions on a bigger scale.

As a disclaimer, I'm not involved in any content dispute with Wiki.arfazhxss although I did report him at WP:ANEW and at WP:SPI.

Also pinging @Bbb23: who has witnessed some of their recent disruptions. LucrativeOffer (talk) 01:42, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

SPI

Is it possible to run another check-user over

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/გიორგი172 --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Joyous Season

I wish that you may have a very Happy Holiday! Whether you celebrate Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Hogmanay, Festivus or your hemisphere's Solstice, this is a special time of year for almost everyone! May the New Year provide you joy and fulfillment! Thanks for everything you do here. Cremastra (talk) 22:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Coffee/Holidays}} to your fellow editors' talk pages.

Cremastra (talk) 22:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

MrGreen1163's SPI

Hi Ivanvector, why did you close the SPI without the necessary scrutiny of the evidence that I spent my time marshalling for my legitimate suspicions that throwaway accounts were being abused for aiding the efforts of the suspected sockmaster. I have no idea why Abhishek0831996 butted in and have had very little interactions with them, if any, and have had no clue that Aman.kumar.goel was blocked or had reported this user before. They didn't do a crime though. How do you justify implying that reporting throwaway] accounts like this was me weaponizing the SPI? Not only have you closed the SPI without considering the evidence but with essentially bad faith observations about me and others that I take exception to. And what's with your offhand use of loaded expressions like "political opponents", like what do you even imply I am doing here for all these years? MBlaze Lightning (talk) 17:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@MBlaze Lightning: I empathize with the time you probably spent compiling your evidence, but it amounts to many accounts holding a common POV in a long-running geopolitical dispute with deep nationalist bias on all sides of it. It's simply not convincing evidence of sockpuppetry. We're talking about a country with a population of over 230 million with a diaspora estimated at another 10 million (the world's 6th largest), and a conflict that is deeply personal for literally billions; it's simply expected that many editors will hold this POV. These investigation requests amount to little more than demands to preemptively interrogate every Pakistani editor, and no we will not do that. It would be rather simple to apply your same logic against the influx of editors arguing for "Indian victory" at Talk:Indo-Pakistani war of 1947–1948, and you're not all sockpuppets, are you? It's the "Indian editors interested in cricket" argument in a different form.

As for not knowing about the other editors, I don't really believe you; the editor interaction tool strongly suggests otherwise. There has been a pattern for many years in these India-Pakistan disputes that an editor on one side reports an editor on the other side that they're in a dispute with at SPI, and when that investigation turns up nothing then a different editor reports the other editor again but under a different case, and that goes on and on until a clerk familiar with the pattern shuts it down. The fact that Aman.kumar.goel reported MrGreen1163 and that investigation was closed, and then you reported MrGreen1163 again anyway, is more of that same pattern. And that's why I'm telling you again that SPI will not be used as a substitute for dispute resolution: spend your energy discussing with your opponents, rather than just trying to get rid of them. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@Ivanvector, I am baffled by your response and your audacity to double down with your thoughtless insinuations and aspersions. No, I have no business watching people to see who is doing what. Neither you have any business demeaning me at places remarking that I am proxying for a blocked user. I filed this SPI report much before Aman.kumar.goel was even blocked. The accounts I reported have not the slightest relation with the accounts Aman.kumar.goel reported in his report with the exception of MrGreen1163, with whom I am not engaged in any active content dispute. When a throwaway account with a handful of edits is used to revert my reversion of the other person's reversion of a contested edit on an obscure page, I have every right to suspect the bona fides of the involved user and the grounds to investigate further. When I furnished detailed evidence that lead me to a conclusion for an objective evaluation, what gives you the privilege to cast aspersions on my bona fides in lieu of looking at what has been presented in its own merit? If the evidence is so flimsy, why has the first of the suspected socks been already CU blocked independent of my report[3]? These accounts, in their fleeting history, have aided one other on topics I haven't had a clue existed in my 8 years of editing in this rarefied India-Pakistan topic area. Your generic "oh, it's a country of xxx million people who all collectively obsess about same things on the same platform and at the same places and at the same time" besides not having a tinge of basis to it, fails to show understanding or appreciation of the fact that these newly created accounts together with the suspected master are the only ones active on these recondite pages Battle of Hussainiwala, Battle of Kaiser-e-Hind Fortress, Operation Datta Khel and 1950 Afghan invasion of Pakistan to collectively obsess about the same edits and write the same quibbles about the same things. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 08:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't even care about the SPI at this point, Ivanvector, but you don't get to fling mud of your own at others, and insinuate that editors in good standing are proxying for a blocked user without evidence. If you believe so strongly in such a story, I encourage you to pursue the case, failing that, redact it altogether, because I do not condone it. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 08:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

• I was on my way to respond to your ping on this SPI but it has been already archived,[4] and then I saw this discussion. As it has been already noted above, I would reiterate that the SPI was filed much before Aman.kumar.Goel was blocked thus it is already clear that no proxying happened. I am a regular at SPIs and in fact you have helped me out with one recently.[5] I would also urge you to strike your accusation of proxying in the archived report because proxying really didnt happen. Thanks Abhishek0831996 (talk) 16:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

• Ivanvector have had a look at my request? Abhishek0831996 (talk) 16:27, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

@Abhishek0831996: very busy today and probably will lose power because of a passing winter storm, but I will revisit my comment in the archive as soon as I'm able. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Just discovered now that one more suspected sock (on that SPI) has been blocked for socking. [6] Hopefully that lends some more credibility to the request made here. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 14:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@Abhishek0831996: it doesn't. I can't say too much, but the way that checkuser works, the fact that checks were run but those accounts weren't identified is reasonably good evidence that they're not related. I didn't run the checks and haven't seen the data, but the CU who did has much more experience with the tool than I do. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Persianwise

I do not know whether you kept user:Persianwise in your wachlist after having blocked them. In any case, you will certainly be interestested in the first edit of this user after you blocked them for editing their talk page.

This and their 2024 posts at Talk:Cartesian coordinate system#Cartesian coordinate system show clearly that this is a case of WP:NOTHERE. I suggest an indefinite block. D.Lazard (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Wow. Now blocked indefinitely, and I'm sure I'll have to come back later and revoke their talk page access, although I've preemptively warned them about that. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

It seems like the time has come to revoke TPA. I was hoping they could be convinced that their approach would not accomplish their goals, but it seems they've doubled down on personally attacking others. Serves me right for being naïve, I guess? EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Welp. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

@Ivanvector Admin, please also see the request. At WP:SPI I made about sockpuppets of Rawna Praveen singh solanki [7]. and see if they have other slipper accounts. I just pinged you because there are many queries about sock accounts, but mostly admins are not responding quickly to the SPI investigation list.2404:3100:189E:B5DC:1:0:191D:137F (talk) 01:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:G10

I really don't feel like posting to the case request page again, but I read your post about speedy deletion, and I just wanted to ask one question about G10. I'm not here to debate whether the page qualified for G10. As you know, I didn't delete it on that basis (don't need to list again all the mistakes I made leading up to my deletion - still embarrassed about it as I type). Are you saying that G10 applies only to BLPs? --Bbb23 (talk) 16:26, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

That's my interpretation of how G10 is written as it seems to be entirely framed around negative biographical information, but I see it also links to Wikipedia:Attack page which describes attacks concerning non-living entities, so I might be interpreting it too narrowly. I'll revise my comments at ARC. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:41, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, my interpretation has always been that it's mostly used with BLPs, next with non-BLPs, and last with organizations. The title of it is "Pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate, or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose" - note the word "entity", but the text doesn't mention entities except by implication with {{Db-attackorg}}. The fuller explanation at "Attack page" does a better job. In my view, the text of G10 should be clarified, but CSD is a touchy place, so I'm not about to do it.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I might write something there, but I'm also feeling like I'm getting involved in too many disputes lately. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:07, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

The ping thing

Sorry about the pinging & your request shall be respected. If I hadn't pinged you there, I might've been accused of selective pinging. GoodDay (talk) 19:35, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Understood, I assumed you were pinging everyone. No disrespect intended, I just think I should avoid that discussion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Administrator Conduct Case 2024-1: Mzajac 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/Administrator Conduct Case 2024-1: Mzajac. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Administrator Conduct Case 2024-1: Mzajac/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 30, 2024, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Administrator Conduct Case 2024-1: Mzajac/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} 17:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Redirects after page moves

Hello, Ivanvector,

Please consider leaving a redirect when you move an article, especially a long-standing article. This is particularly important when you are correcting a bad page move. If you look at User:AnomieBOT III/Broken redirects, you can see all of the broken redirects left behind when you moved Shaykh (honorific) to Sheikh and didn't leave a redirect. The way the bots work on this issue is that if an article is moved, the bots quickly change all of the redirects to point to new, bad article title. If you don't leave a redirect behind when you move the article back, then the bots can't return the redirects to point to the correct article title and they show up as broken redirects and are frequently deleted. But if you leave a redirect, then the bots can restore the original redirects as they were before the page move. I have created redirects from the article page and talk page so the bots can fix the redirects.

I go over this problem with most of the page movers here who, for some reason, do not like to leave a redirect behind when they move articles. But the urge to do this is very strong if the move was the result of vandalism which they just want to erase including the bad article page. But it's better to leave a redirect which can, after the bots act, be deleted. Alternatively, if you want to take the time, an editor, page mover or admin can correct all of the broken redirects themselves but it's typically easier to let the bots handle that task.

Thank you for all of the work you do here! It's appreciated. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

This goes for Talk:Al-Fatawa al-Alamgiriyya, too. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Liz! I realized that was happening partway through what I was working on, and I thought I went back and recreated all the ones I had deleted but I guess I missed some. Thanks for following up. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:38, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Ivanvector. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Doug Weller talk 08:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2024).

Administrator changes

• Sdkb
• The Night Watch

• East718
• Isabelle Belato
• Mzajac
• Staecker
• Stan Shebs
• Sugarfish
• Tamzin

Bureaucrat changes

SilkTork

Guideline and policy news

• Phase I of the 2024 RfA review is now open for participation. Editors are invited to review, comment on, and propose improvements to the requests for adminship process.
• Following an RfC, the inactivity requirement for the removal of the interface administrator right increased from 6 months to 12 months.

Technical news

• The mobile site history pages now use the same HTML as the desktop history pages. (T353388)

Miscellaneous

• The 2024 appointees for the Ombuds commission are だ＊ぜ, AGK, Ameisenigel, Bennylin, Daniuu, Doǵu, Emufarmers, Faendalimas, MdsShakil, Minorax, Nehaoua, Renvoy and RoySmith as members, with Vermont serving as steward-observer.
• Following the 2024 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Ajraddatz, Albertoleoncio, EPIC, JJMC89, Johannnes89, Melos and Yahya.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

1RR appeal

Hi, I would like to inform you about my 1RR appeal (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#1RR_appeal_by_Marcelus_(restored)), cheers Marcelus (talk) 08:40, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I

Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:

• Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
• Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
• Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
• Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
• Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
• Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
• Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
• Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
• Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
• Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
• Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
• Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
• Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
• Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
• Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
• Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
• Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Spicybiryani SPI

I had my suspicion since 2023, when this editor made edit request to change the "strenght" of Indian forces on Talk:Bangladesh Liberation War,[8] just like his previous sock Cipher21,[9] but I simply waited for more evidence. I wanted to file the SPI on 8 February, given how this user is alone and desperate about adding "India" as "alleged" role on infobox, like his earlier sock.[10] But then again, I felt I should wait more because you have already closed the similar SPI[11] citing the block of the OP. Now this editor has provided yet another striking evidence on here which matches up with his earlier edits made here for limiting casualties figures to "1500".

Can you allow me to file an SPI? IMO, the above evidence together with what was already provided on the last SPI and "PossiLikely" CU finding in December are enough for a block. Orientls (talk) 08:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello Ivanvector, can you consider replying to the above message? I don't find any doubt over sock puppetry charge. His earlier socks also came up as "PossiLikely".[12] Thanks. Orientls (talk) 07:58, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Orientls. If I've given you the impression that you need my permission to file then I've done something wrong, you don't need to ask me, and besides I couldn't possibly keep up with the requests if I did think I could impose this sort of rule. I am critical of SPI reports where the filer is clearly attacking a political opponent and doesn't have any real evidence, but I think you have a better case here. But I don't think checkuser will be useful now, and I don't have much free time right now, so you should go ahead and file the report I think. Along with your evidence you can mention that the account was created 10 days after the previous confirmed sock was blocked, and if you can find any evidence of the new account picking up arguments that older accounts left off, those are useful things to put in a report. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:36, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

About article Harbin

Hi! If you translate this website this website with Google Translation, You will find a sentence that says: "Harbin" comes from the Jurchen language "Harwen", which means "swan". This is different from the "Place of Drying Fishing Nets" statement introduced by English Wikipedia. I wonder if I can add it to the article?-- 邻家的王子 (talk) 17:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Blocked???

HEY UMM...? I AM SHOWING IM BLOCKED FORM SETTING UP AN ACCOUNT ON HERE AN IT LINKS TOUR INFO AS THA BLOCKING "ADMIN"? IVE NEVER DONE ANYTHING MORE THAN READ AN DOWNLOAD PDF'S SO UMMM....? WHAT GIVES? LOL CAN THIS BE CORRECTED? ID APPRECIATE IT IF YOU COULD GET BACK TO ME WHEN YOUR ABLE THANKS!!! ReCkLeSs1989 (talk) 20:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi ReCkLeSs1989, welcome to Wikipedia. You do seem to be able to create an account since you are editing from one. If you are trying to create additional accounts and running into a block, unfortunately I can't tell which block is causing that problem. The error message you see should have instructions for what you can do next, either posting a message with technical information that will help us locate the problem, or how you can request an account be created for you. But before you do anything, please familiarize yourself with our policy on the use of multiple accounts. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia App says you blocked this IP, but no log on it?

When I use the Wikipedia app to edit now, it says you blocked this IP for "Trolling; obviously not here to contribute to the encyclopedia", with an expiry of January 26, 2025. However when I use a desktop, as I am while typing this, there is no block notice, and I have no message about this. Can you please clarify? 198.48.143.196 (talk) 05:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi 198.48.143.196. I can't verify, but most likely the device you're using the app on and your desktop computer are connected to different networks, so each would have a different IP address, and only the IP of your app device is blocked. I can't see what the blocked IP is, though. You're free to edit from this connection, but if you see the error on your app again and would like to resolve it, then make an unblock request on your user talk page while still using the app. I don't use the app myself so I'm not sure where to look for that. Please see the guide to appealing blocks (especially the section on shared IP blocks), and use the unblock template ({{unblock}}) to make your request; your "reason" can be something simple like "I am affected by an anonymous IP block", and you don't have to try to explain "what you did wrong" like the instructions say.

Alternatively, if you have (or create) an account you can request IP block exemption, but we can only apply that to accounts, not to logged-out editors. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Super Hylos

A few articles you G5ed were at AFD - see e.g Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yannik Taniwel and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julius Sohilait. Please can you close accordingly? GiantSnowman 13:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman:  Done. I can't easily see if there are any others, but let me know if there are more, or go ahead and close them similarly. Cheers. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the speedy response. GiantSnowman 13:37, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Blocked

Hi Ivanvector, I got a notice that I have been blocked from making any further edits by you. I have been a Wikipedia user for almost 15 years and now I would like to contribute when I can towards topics I am knowledgeable of. Yesterday I began work on what would be my first page. Upon working a little bit on the page I gave it a break and thought I'd save it, it appears I in fact probably tried to publish it. At the time I didn't realize that would send it out to be checked over, I just didn't want the little I had done to be erased. I hope the block can be lifted, I will indeed further detail the page I was working on and include more references and information. This is all very new to me but everyone has to start somewhere and I really would like to continue this in the future. Maybe you could even give me a tip or two on how to correctly go about and improve my method. Thanks and I hope we can come to an understanding. -Sorger740 Sorger740 (talk) 05:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Sorger740. Your account is not blocked, and as far as I can tell there are no IP blocks that should be affecting you. It could be that you were editing from a different connection when you saw the block message, but I would need some more information to look that up. As long as you're able to edit with this account then you should be fine, but if you see a message about being blocked again then it should also have instructions for how to appeal, or how to contact administrators if it's a dynamic IP or open proxy block.

I can see that you created the draft Draft:Brigitte Calls Me Baby, and it looks like you did submit it for review even if you didn't mean to, and another user has provided some feedback on how to improve the draft so that it might be accepted. We generally don't delete drafts unless they're abandoned for at least six months, so it's still there for you to work on if you'd like to.

Getting an article on a band accepted is a bit of a challenge, because new editors often submit promotional articles on small bands that they're affiliated with, and Wikipedia does not accept advertising. We have high standards for notability for bands; you can see the general criteria here. In order to be accepted your draft will need to demonstrate, through citations to reliable sources, that the band meets our criteria.

I hope that helps some. Good luck and happy editing! Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the response I will check into it then, maybe I was mistaken. I am not affiliated with the band at all, but I am knowledgeable about them amongst other bands and topics I plan to write about. Aside from good references and good writing are there any specific ways to have a better chance to be accepted as a new Wikipedia contributor? Thanks again Sorger740 (talk) 18:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

A cup of joe with my appreciation

I thought your explanation here was quite clueful, not unusual for a fifteen-year editor and admin like you. You elucidated a larger political point that some editors somehow miss when they go down the route of jot-and-tittle adherence to rules. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! But almost none of those words are mine. The WP:CAPITULATE essay was shown to me by another editor in a discussion only a few months ago. I do think it's good advice for a lot of editors, though. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Nauman335

re this note As an admin duck blocking, can I close the request? I thought that had to wait for a clerk and/or CU. Happy to help with that backlog if I can do so. Thanks for flagging. Star Mississippi 02:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Star Mississippi. No, I misspoke. You can pretty much go ahead and do anything that needs to be done administratively in a case (adding evidence, blocking users, etc.) but you probably should leave it to a clerk to actually change the status flag. There are sometimes non-obvious things that need to be done. Thanks for your help anyway! Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for clarifying! Have a good day. Star Mississippi 03:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Query

Hello, Ivanvector,

I was looking into the situation with DIVINE that happened earlier today. I noticed some peculiar behavior at an AFD that seemed off but I didn't think it would end up as it did. Any way, in their talk page comments they mentioned SWAPD and I didn't know what that was. So, I did a search, found out it was a marketplace of some sorts and when I did a search for Wikipedia, I found this listing and then there was this. There were a few more. Maybe this kind of thing is well-known in functionary circles but this was new to me. Of course, there is no proof that these posts are being honest and are accurate. It's just so strange when editors you've come to know from working with just kind of implode like that. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:47, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I just digested the entire AN thread about this, which I hadn't seen when I posted this, and my observations now seem pretty petty in comparison with Usedtobecool's claims. But I'll leave my message here in case it is useful. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

About the edit war on the article of White Mexicans

Greetings Ivanvector, I write to you as an attempt to get a second opinion regarding my partial block on articles such as White Mexicans, the message on my talk page reads "During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection..." During the course of the dispute I did try to discuss as can be seen in the talk page [13][14], is the other editor who refused to discuss his changes. Besides that I invited the opposed editor(s) to discuss multiple times[15][16][17] and I also requested page protection [18][19], on top of this all I have to remark that I wasn't the one seeking to perform controversial changes but the one trying to keep the article on a stable/middlegroung version (as can be seen in the article's history, I'm not the only editor reverting Analyticalreview[20]). If I have reverted, it has been because the other editor(s) have been completely, deliberately irresponsive to Wikipedia's guidelines and they have left me with no other choice. To finish this message, after all this there's another sock account reverting without discussing anything already[21] and I say that it is a sockpuppet/puppeter because one cannot get more obvious than this [22], [23] with the later account being already blocked[24] (You may also find that the arguments the blocked sock uses are almost identical to those Analyticalreview and Uruguayan989 have been using in the last weeks). As I told to another administrator (Daniel Case) two days ago [25], the guy just switches accounts as if it was nothing. Pob3qu3 (talk) 22:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

@Pob3qu3: right above the warning you quoted it reads, in bold, "Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; Do not edit war even if you believe you are right." The page had already been protected because you were edit warring, and the very first edit after that protection expired was you restoring the content that led to the page being protected. You have also been edit warring on the same topic on other articles. So, rather than protecting multiple pages and making it so that nobody can edit them because of one or two editors' behaviour, I have instead blocked the editors most responsible from editing them. You can continue participating in the talk page discussion and working towards consensus. Also, please stop accusing everyone who doesn't agree with you of being a sockpuppet. If you keep that up you may be blocked from editing sitewide, and then you would not be able to participate at all. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Request for deletion of a redirect page which is not even a require

Greetings @Ivanvector, i would like to draw your attention at the Ahmedabad Titans page which is redirected to a Gujarat Titans, which is a team in IPL. To keep Ahmedabad Titans page doesnt make sense because the team were never been called by ahmedabad titans as such or it is never been used by that name. So if it is right to raise a deletion of this page or not, wants your view on this? If yes, could you please raise the deletion request for that? Curious man123 (talk) 09:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)