User talk:Ivanvector/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Maya515

I'm not sure what you did wrong when you moved the Megaman1988 case to this one, but the archive didn't come with it. I'm not sure my fix was best, but at least we now have the correct archive.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. Maybe something changed in the move interface, related to WP:PAGEMOVER? There was talk of changing the behaviour regarding moving subpages. Maybe I didn't click something I was supposed to. I think your fix is fine, anyway, and I'll have a better look next time I move a case. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Robb Well's birthday is Oct. 28, 1971 - Source IMDB

Robb Well's birthday is wrong on this page:

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

Robb Well's birthday is Oct. 28, 1971 - Source IMDB

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1036211/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.19.229.254 (talk) 18:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, but you did not read what I posted on your IP's talk page. IMDb cannot be used as a source for biographies of living persons, because that site relies on user-submitted information and does not do any of its own research, so we do not consider it reliable. The Swearnet Tumblr is only marginally better because that at least is a primary self-published source, and it contradicts what is published at IMDb. I haven't been able to find a better source for Wells' birth date. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:35, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/93.36.6.165

More complaints about your handling of this case at the SPI seems like overkill to me. Your Talk page is a little less public, which is why I'm here. Frankly, I think you should drop your request for blocks and close the case. Your change to a block of the IPs for socking because I said you couldn't do it for edit-warring sounds like an end-run around my pronouncement. If you sincerely felt that the IPs were being operated by the named account, you would have said so earlier, and as Rob says, you would have also recommended some action against the named account, even it were only a warning. You should reconsider your actions.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:49, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

@Bbb23 and BU Rob13: we've made this all into a much bigger mess than it ought to be. Rob's block of the filer may be contra policy: the IP stopped editing yesterday at 14:04 (all times GMT-3, I think). ItaloCelt84 created an account yesterday at 14:08, and disclosed their connection to the IP and clear intention to abandon it and edit only with the named account at 14:19, which is a valid disclosure per WP:SCRUTINY. The IP was blocked by Vanamonde93 today at 2:46, 14-ish hours after ItaloCelt made the disclosure. Rob's block should not be a sockpuppetry block - ItaloCelt was clearly not editing deceptively to intentionally evade a block, it's more likely they simply didn't know the IP was blocked since they had stopped using it. Commuting the IP's WP:DE block to the named account might be valid but no block was evaded, technically and pedantically speaking.

Addressing the clerk notes section specifically, Bbb23, I feel that your reversal of my original block recommendation was less about the merit of the request and more about the fact that it came from a non-administrator. There is no more plausible explanation in my mind, given the evidence available, that Xoil stopped editing as they approached 3RR and began editing logged out to avoid scrutiny, using two IPs which had never edited before but were keenly familiar with Xoil's position in the dispute. However I also feel that Xoil's behaviour was instigated by 173/ItaloCelt, and it would be needlessly punitive to block given that the pages were already protected; I toyed with the idea of suggesting a one-second block but in the end I thought process was better served by blocking the IPs for 3RR, although in retrospect that was just as unnecessary, and I erred in not more explicitly outlining my rationale. I can request a block for whatever I feel like, in good faith, the same as if I requested this block at AN3 or wherever; it's up to the reviewing administrator whether or not to take my advice. I'm usually quite happy to take your comments as constructive criticism because clearly I don't know anyeverything and my logic is not bulletproof, but your rejection of my request with your comment that "certainly a non-admin SPI clerk cannot request a block for anything but sock puppetry", with the gruff edit summary "no", felt less like a constructive review of my suggestion with good-faith advice, and more like "go away, non-admin filth". Still, I assure you that my subsequent edit was not meant to be retaliatory nor an end-run around your "pronouncement", I was merely attempting to frame what I thought was the best course of action within the parameters you had "pronounced".

Rob emailed me overnight (it was overnight for me) and I replied this morning while running out the door, and then he did what he thought was best. I'm not sure what the timeline of your comment here was, I got an email notification on the drive home from Summerside while passing a bunch of tractors on the highway; I don't think the timeline matters, anyway. Rob is right that the IPs are stale, blocks have been handed out notwithstanding my comment above, and dispute resolution can carry on in the appropriate venue (also the filer appears to have withdrawn the allegation, prior to being blocked themselves).

However, I notice in the IP's block log that they're linked to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DifensorFidelis, and I think that it may be worth investigating whether ItaloCelt is related. I don't have time to look into this today, but noting in case you or anyone else wants to do more follow-up. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:46, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

"go away, non-admin filth" is an unfortunate (and inaccurate) interpretation of my bluntness.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:29, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

My block is for evading a block. It most certainly is blockable to create an account to evade while blocked on an IP. Announcing you're evading a block doesn't change the fact that you're evading. (I did keep the block length to what the IP was blocked for since it's possible they were unaware). ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:42, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: the IP was not blocked when the account was created. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:08, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

They continued editing on the account after the IP was blocked, however, which is all that's relevant to evasion. They don't get a free pass from a block if they log on to a preexisting account. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:28, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: I had half-typed a request to review your block at AN before I stumbled across Doug Weller's comment at AN3 that the IP is static ("stable", as he put it, I assume he means the same as static). Rather than continue arguing with you about whether this is deliberate sockpuppetry worthy of a block under the policy or a commuted block from a related account (it seems it would be a block in either case) would you agree that an account created from a static IP which was previously linked to a different case which also edit-warred in this topic area is likely to be a sock of that case? (See my comment about DifensorFidelis above) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry doesn't need to be deliberate to violate the blocking policy, which states "User accounts or IP addresses used to evade a block should also be blocked." Note that I've not extended the block or blocked in excess of the original block, which would require "intentionally evad[ing] a block". See WP:EVADE. As for the DifensorFidelis stuff, I haven't reviewed the facts of that SPI, so I can't comment. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:30, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

• Commenting here since I was pinged: I blocked the IP for disruptive editing per Doug Weller's ANEW request. Despite having been quiescent for a few hours, in my view there was sufficient risk of continued disruption to justify the block. I did not at that point know that they had registered an account, and I don't think Doug did either. Rob, I think Ivanvector is correct in saying that the IP was not blocked at the time the account was created, and so it was not block evasion, per se. It is also quite possible that if I had seen the contributions of ItaloCelt along with those of the IP, I would not have blocked, but I'm not sure about this, so I'll take a closer look shortly. Vanamonde (talk) 10:21, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I think the IP was first brought to my attention, this round of blocks at User talk:Doug Weller#Ip for other reasons. At the time I went to ANEW I'd forgotten about the old sockpuppet stuff. I wasn't paying attention to ItaloCelt at that point, he came onto my radar the next day with edits on racialism. The edits by the IP 173.238.79.44 (talk · contribs) are pretty similar to those of Veritas2016 (talk · contribs), a DifensorFidelis sock, both in the past (obviously) and recently. ItaloCelt84 looks like another sock. User:KrakatoaKatie do you see similarities? Another SPI may be required. Doug Weller talk 11:04, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Given that we are not currently certain about socking (I don't know the subject well enough to judge this accurately: I certainly cannot say for sure that they are disconnected) I am not going to unblock at this moment. I do not, however, have objections to somebody else unblocking, if they judge that to be appropriate. Vanamonde (talk) 11:14, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
      • At this point, guys, let's all back off. The IP block expires in about four hours and I don't see any real point in further prolonged unblock discussion. Doug, I don't see a real correlation between Veritas2016 and the IP – they seem interested in different ends of the Mediterranean (though I'm not European and not really familiar with the DF sockfarm, and I could be wrong here). Katie^talk 19:24, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

• Agreed. Apologies for not saying it earlier or more explicitly, but I've no intention of continuing to pursue my objection to Rob's block. Whether or not it's valid as a sockpuppetry block is currently irrelevant, not only because the block expires shortly, and for what it's worth I apologize for making such a big deal about it. Regarding DifensorFidelis/ItaloCelt84, I'm going to post some findings at SPI. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:35, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Maple leaf

Did you lose your maple leaf off your sig? Finally when it started appearing for me on me new-fangled Windows 7.1 you lost it. Awww, I quite liked the Unicode for it, anyway, but it was quite nice. Britis designer, of course. Si Trew (talk) 00:00, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I changed it a while ago because my OS started always showing it as a yellow-coloured glyph no matter what code I used, and so the patriotic value was somewhat diminished. I think it's probably better without an emoji in it anyway. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

The union flag only ever came up in black-and-white, or rather, you can only have two colo(u)rs in a font. That's a bit odd when you come to think of it, well it is just how humans are habituated, because for four hundred years print has only been one colour, fonts (typefaces, I won't stand on that one) are always in monochrome. You can add effects to them etc for sure, but they are always basically monochrome, like the Canuck flag, red and white, so that colourblind Newfies can identify it and not invade Iceland or Ireland instead. I hope you and yours are all well. Thank you so much for the condolences on me mum biting the dust, strangely I have been to more funerals in Canada than I have in England, the ex-missus' side of the family. She was there at me mum's too, so it was nice to catch up with her again. She pretends she can speak french just because she has a French surname. She doesn't know her cou from her bijou. Of course I have gone up in the world since then, so with the magyar missus, if I am annoyed with her I tend to do it in Latin, works a treat. Ex sub witreo team? I know it makes no sense, but she doesn't. Si Trew (talk) 00:10, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

SPI

I deleted that case you just endorsed because there are already two out there for this guy. Also, CU is useless because he's using proxies. Cheers. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know it was a duplicate, and I can't tell that he's using proxies. Thanks for letting me know, I probably would have wondered where it went. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, my attempts to stop them with an edit filter haven't been particularly effective, either. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:55, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Rodrigo Duterte

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Rodrigo Duterte. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Ivanvector. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Astudent0/Archive

IP editor 204.126.132.231 is static IP, which belongs to Howard Community College. geolocate and University.

This IP also overlapped with the four editors in multiple AFDs.

I found this IP from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mdtemp/Archive.

And Astudent0's first edit in Wikipedia was in the article Howard Community College. --Marvellous Spider-Man 14:13, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, yeah, these editors have been analyzed to death already. I know about the Mdtemp case but there's really nothing that can be done regarding the IP at the moment. Thanks for pointing it out though. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:08, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I saw the case was archived. As PRehse was accusing me using weak evidences, I considered that I could add another evidence. The IP is inactive. Probably Astudent0 has completed his course and left the college. The administrators supported my evidences, but PRehse and TheGracefulSlick was not happy with the SPI as User_talk:PRehse#comment, User_talk:Papaursa#Do_not_lose_faith. I did not include PRehse in the SPI case report, though he tried to include himself? Bbb23 advised him not to keep irrelevant comments in the SPI. Marvellous Spider-Man 16:40, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I feel I must point out that I had nothing against the sockpuppet case on everyone, just Papuarsa. I do not know the other editors enough to make a judgement like I did with Papaursa. I hope my mere opinion on something on a talk page that was more to encourage an (understandably) disgruntled user is not taken out of context and used to involve me in this. But seriously, Marvellous Spider-Man just give it a rest, the case has been closed.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:02, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

• Ivanvector, I have reviewed the sockpuppet case and have a question. I am confused, why was Mdtemp not CUed like the other accounts? I feel like the behavioral evidence, like for Papuarsa, can be considered circumstantial, and Mdtemp was incorrectly blocked. Is it possible to CU the account or reopen the case to see if he/she needs to be unblocked? If the CU finds no match wouldn't that be a reason to doubt the findings?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:35, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, that's odd. I was pretty certain that Mdtemp was checked at the same time as the other accounts, but there is no result indicated. Maybe Mike V and Bbb23 can shed light on that. At any rate I found the behavioural connection between Mdtemp and the others far stronger than for Papaursa. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 01:42, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

No check was run.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:57, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Bbb23 can a CU or something else be done? I know this is late in the game, but Mdtemp was an important voice at martial arts-related discussions. I just feel he/she was misrepresented by the behavioral evidence acting as the sole reasoning behind the block. A CU can either enhance my fears or confirm the ruling.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Mdtemp (talk · contribs · count) is  Stale.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:13, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Well of course he is - he's been blocked. OK that's hyperbole - his last edit was shortly before the very long running SPI investigation. People react to these things in different ways - some vigorously defend others throw their hands up and say I don't need this ..... So no idea why he stopped editing - but I still strongly believe he was hard done by. Lifting the block probably won't get him back so I suppose this discussion is useless.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

(nit-picking) If you're saying an account is stale just because it's blocked, that's not true.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:03, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Hence the self point to hyperbole. But it certainly looks like he stopped editing because of the SPI investigation although his habit over the years (of good editing by the way) was to take extended breaks from 2 weeks to well over a month).Peter Rehse (talk) 15:09, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

And the "Hyperbole" can explain why three editors Astudent), Jakjr and Mdtemp stopped editing in August 2016 with no unblock request. Previous SPIs didn't stop them from editing? Marvellous Spider-Man 16:24, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Mdtemp was checked against this set of accounts in July 2012 and seems to have been between  Possible and  Unlikely at that time, although I'm not sure I'm interpreting AGK's comment correctly and there's a history of unclear CheckUser results in this case. Anyway, if Mdtemp wants to appeal their block, their first step is contacting JamesBWatson. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:21, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh well, thanks though Ivanvector, at least you did thorough research into this. I strongly believe Mdtemp was unjustly knocked out of here, another mistep I have seen recently in these cases. A CU should have been performed, no reason why it shouldn't have been and Bbb23's bogus excuse is no good justification. I sometimes interacted with Mdtemp and he/she had solid opinions on Afds. Yet, admins can toss him/her aside, but take nearly a year to finally indef block a notorious trouble-maker like CrazyAces489, who was in the same field of work. Sorry for the little rant; I'm just tired of the inconsistency of this process.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:28, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Bbb23's "excuse" is not "bogus", it's just that CheckUser data purges automatically after 90 days, and Mdtemp has not edited in that time frame so there's nothing to check. To PRehse's point about Mdtemp stopping editing, I'm not terribly convinced of that. Mdtemp's history shows quite a few regular gaps of several months at a time that don't seem to have anything to do with anything in particular, and they had stopped editing before the sockpuppet investigation in this case. It has been inconsistent here because this has been a challenging case, with different eyes, different technical results and different opinions over a fairly long time period, and never anything particularly conclusive being found. I certainly expect this isn't the last of it, but just at the moment there's nothing we can really do here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:35, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

~~~ Merry Christmas! ~~~
Joyeux Noël! ~ Buon Natale! ~ Vrolijk Kerstfeest! ~ Frohe Weihnachten!
¡Feliz Navidad! ~ Feliz Natal! ~ Καλά Χριστούγεννα! ~ Hyvää Joulua!
God Jul! ~ Glædelig Jul! ~ Linksmų Kalėdų! ~ Priecīgus Ziemassvētkus!
Häid Jõule! ~ Wesołych Świąt! ~ Boldog Karácsonyt! ~ Veselé Vánoce!
Veselé Vianoce! ~ Crăciun Fericit! ~ Sretan Božić! ~ С Рождеством!

Hello, Ivanvector! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
Linguist If you reply to me here, please add {{ping|Linguist111}} to the start of your message 11:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove and leave other users this message by adding {{subst:Multi-language Season's Greetings}}

Good luck with your RfA!

Merry Christmas

Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection policy RfC

You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Having voted in and observing your RfA, just wanted to give you a quick congratulations for the unanimous vote thus far! --JustBerry (talk) 17:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

Congrats in advance, and Merry Christmas :) GABgab 15:13, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings!

Hello Ivanvector: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, -- Dane ^talk 08:23, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Merry Christmas!

	Merry Christmas!
	Have a safe and merry Christmas, and congrats on the unanimous support on the RfA so far! JudgeRM (talk to me) 18:54, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations!

I noticed that with more than 30 hours remaining, you will be added to WP:RFX200. I trust you will use the mop wisely. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 18:39, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations on a successful RfA

I am happy to let you know that your request for adminship has been closed successfully. You are now an administrator on the English Wikipedia. I strongly recommend reviewing the New Admin School to read up on any tools you are unfamiliar with. If you have any questions, feel free to let me know. Again, congratulations! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Precious

assume good faith

Thank you for quality articles such as Old Princetown Road, Emu and the Jabiru and for {{Prince Edward Island provincial highways}}, filling its links, for "it's incredibly important to assume good faith", - Greg with the best leaf, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:45, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Holtj

"I think it would be a good idea for a neutral reviewer with some knowledge of this topic (I'm not one) to review the substance of the sockfarm's suggested edits, if in fact the material is supported by reliable sources". I agree in principle; my involvement with the article comes only from the fact that I reviewed it at GAC and it stayed on my watchlist. I've tried to act as a mediator, and encouraged Midnightblueowl to make some compromises with the editor(s) in question, but the issue here is not nearly as clear-cut as the IP editor(s) make out; the complaints are often unclear or unsubstantiated, and requests for change are accompanied by edit warring, hounding, and, of course, sock-/meatpuppetry. Any suggestions about finding an amicable way forward here would be warmly received. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I see that dispute resolution didn't work, although I can't really follow what happened there. You might be able to get some input from WP:FTN for example, or perhaps you could go to WP:3O and try to summarize the dispute. Like I said the topic is outside my wheelhouse, but I dislike the idea of discarding potentially useful information just because of a user who will not stop socking. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

"Political" RfA vote

No, I'm not trying to persuade you to change your mind.

It intrigues me that you've just made a "political" RfA oppose vote, which is very rare on the English Wikipedia. "I'm opposing because I often disagree with this candidate's interpretation of policy so I don't want them to have more power in policy decisions." It's a fair point and actually I'm surprised why there aren't more of this sort of votes.

I remember being told off many years ago that RfA is not supposed to be an "election". And deletion discussions aren't "votes" either. Often I think this is just hypocrisy. Maybe it's because we see ourselves as a jury rather than an electorate. Perhaps this kind of hypocrisy sets our heart towards a more productive direction as we try to polish an encyclopedia. Deryck C. 16:23, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think I could convince you that my vote is not political given the circumstances, but it isn't. I quite honestly haven't thought of a way of expressing my particular concern in a way that would not appear to be political, given that the RfD discussion is still open and the policy point is an oft-debated and long-unsettled one. If I'm coming across as political then it is what it is, I suppose.

As for RfA, it's an election, and although I agree that it shouldn't be, those among us who think that it is not are being naive. There are many ways we could make it a discussion to determine genuine consensus, but at least as of now it's functionally an election. We require electors to identify (IPs aren't allowed to vote), we encourage candidates to recruit high-profile nominators (campaigning), and we've set an arbitrary "post" whereby we measure whether or not a candidate has won, coincidentally roughly a two-thirds plurality. We even have our own version of an Electoral College, in the form of crat chats for very close elections (within the "discretionary range"), in which we trust the appointed electors to enact what they interpret is the decision of the fractured electorate. And furthermore we have no generally accepted qualifying criteria - every elector invents their own, and then within each election we debate what the issues should be for that election. Sometimes the electorate selects the candidate who will build the most roads, or who will fund public libraries, sometimes the electorate chooses the candidate who won't blow up the stadium, and sometimes we pick the candidate who yells the loudest or looks the nicest on TV. It's incredibly broken, but it seems to be exactly what the community wants. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:35, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and none of this last paragraph is in reference to the currently-running RfAs. It's just my observation from watching RfA and reform discussions for a few years. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:36, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

That's an amazing comment. I'll copy it (with citation of course) for future reference... Deryck C. 18:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

SPI case that needs to be closed

If you've got a free minute, could you close Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CommanderShinzon? The sock was blocked following discussion at User talk:C.Fred#Obvious sock. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:58, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done. I don't think there's need for urgency, but there was pretty clearly nothing else to do there. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:03, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Sandbox

I did the same thing a couple of weeks ago, but self-reverted after investigating the page's edit history more carefully — there actually have been instances of newbies misinterpreting it as the editing-sandbox for any musical topic, and overwriting it with sandbox drafts about other bands, instead of recognizing it as an article about a specific band whose proper name was Sandbox. So I think the dabline actually does have to be there, believe it or not. Bearcat (talk) 17:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

ping

fair enough, but on previous occasions - and after waiting for what seemed an inordinate amount of time for a response when no ping was utilized, the ed could have wandered through the equvalent of another 10 socks from previous behaviour, before either clerk or checkuser turns up... patience with socks such as this one is never rewarded, unfortunately JarrahTree 12:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I get it, but I'm sure you can see from the list of cases at WP:SPI that there's a long backlog of cases at the moment, and each one of those is potentially another editor who could be making their way through another dozen sockpuppet accounts. We're a small team but we're doing our best. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I fully understand, and I understand that I have been filing the cases back to front as well (incorrectly that is) - I understand there are piles to get through and few doing a lot of work. Will try to adjust to proper procedure. Pity the particular sock has learnt the tricks. Thanks for your response JarrahTree 12:59, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Curb/Kerb

Hi Ivanvector, and thanks for your comment about my edit to the European. road signs page. Perhaps you'd kindly reconsider your revert? Kerb is not an alternative to curb in British English as you suggest, but a completely different word with a different meaning. As the article already includes the British English and American English variants of "Yield" ("Give Way" in British English), I thought I'd be helpful and add a further variant so that the article is clearly understood on both sides of the pond. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.72.220 (talk) 17:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Just acknowledging that I've read this, I'm busy at the moment but will respond later. Cheers. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Moving to the article's talk page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

SCC theory et al.

Hi there Ivanvector. I've just commented in your recent RfD nomination of SCC theory and other redirects, and in the course of doing so I noticed quite a few more redirects that ought to be bundled into that nomination - in my opinion anyway, but I won't change your nomination to add them. Would you take a look and consider adding these similar redirects to the nomination as well? I will expand my existing "delete" comment to cover those if you do so. Thanks for reading. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 15:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@64.105.98.115: I would be happy to add them, except I don't know what they are, I did look before nominating to see if any of the other redirects would shed light on their purpose. If you'd like to add them yourself, add {{subst:rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=[name of redirect]|target=[name of target]}} below the list of redirects and above my nomination statement. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

They're linked in my comment at the RfD. If you're happy for me to add them, though, I will do so with your permission and we won't risk tripping over each other. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 15:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I see. Yeah, some of those ought to go. I'll take a look through them. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:43, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Closing MfDs

Just a quick note in regard to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Sentence strips, uses, and conundrums: the {{Mfd top}} template should be applied to the very top of the page above the section header. I went ahead and fixed it. No worries however, I occasionally forget to use a {{nac}} template or something along those lines when closing discussions there myself. Warmest Regards, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 08:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

@Godsy: dangit, I knew I'd done that wrong before so I tried to double-check against the log page and I thought it was working. Thanks for catching it! Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:04, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Your decline of a CU at ANI

Just a small piece of advice for the future. When you decline an inline request for a CU, please deactivate the template (I usually put "tlx" in front of it) rather than remove it so it remains visible and provides context. Your decline, btw, was very reasonable. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

That's good advice, thanks. I replaced the deactivated template in the thread. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:34, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I should have known

I see you're a fellow Canadian, which explains so very much! Perhaps we'll meet in Montreal in August at Wikimania. Good luck with the RFA. Risker (talk) 03:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Pizzagate (conspiracy theory)

What exactly makes the disambiguation "unnecessary"? It doesn't seem to match any of the three examples shown in {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}, which respectively are wholly-unnecessary parenthetical disambiguations, unnecessary natural disambiguations, and overspecified parenthetical disambiguations.

The "wholly-unnecessary parenthetical disambiguation" case would apply if the target article were simply "Pizzagate," but it isn't. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 02:41, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@SoledadKabocha: it seems you're right, I'll revert myself unless you've already done it. It would be unnecessary disambiguation if the page at Pizzagate were a redirect to Pizzagate conspiracy theory, which it should, but since that hasn't happened yet you're right. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Ivanvector!

Happy New Year!

Ivanvector,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year.
And congratulations on your adminship. I envy you. ;)
Codename Lisa (talk) 07:22, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year, Ivanvector!

Happy New Year!

Ivanvector,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Donner60 (talk) 09:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year Ivanvector!

Happy New Year!

Ivanvector,
Have a prosperous, productive and wonderful New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

--Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 12:23, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Steamboat Bill

Thanks for the help! See [1]; I didn't remember much about the mechanics of closing one of these. Nyttend (talk) 20:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

SPI question

Hi there. Yesterday I submitted a Sockpuppet investigation. I've been periodically checking up on it but noticed mine just sits there while others come and go. Is there something incorrect about my report? Surely I would have heard about it if it was? I am just curious is all. thanks! --Jennica✿ / ^talk 18:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jennica: no, it looks like you did everything right, it just sometimes takes us a little while to get around to the newest cases. There's just about 100 open cases right now that go back about three weeks, and we're doing our best but which cases get processed first all depends on who's looking at the list, really. Sometimes we do the oldest because they're the oldest, other times we do the newest because they might be the most urgent, everyone has different approaches. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

User Conduct

There's a user by the name of EthiopianHabesha, who seems to have a conflict of interest on the Abyssinian people or Habesha page and other pages related to Ethiopia. He removes cited additions [2] also has a habit of misinterpreting sources and addition of non sourced material. A comment made on a talk page is worrying as he insinuates censoring material if it will prevent ethnic violence in the country. [3] Can something be done?Duqsene (talk) 15:13, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Successful RfA

• Congratulations for adminship !! CAPTAIN RAJU ^(✉) 00:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Congrats..The admins' T-shirt for you. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(✉) 00:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

• Congratulations on your well-deserved, and very-nearly unanimous candidature, Meters (talk) 00:10, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
• Congratulations from me too! Enjoy your T-shirt . —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
• My condolences congratulations. By no small feat, you had the most supported and the 4th most participated RFA in 2016. Mkdw^talk 00:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
• Congratulations, good luck and best wishes. Donner60 (talk) 04:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
• Congrats! I was most excited when I saw your RfA, and even more so knowing you're on the team now. Be sure to give WP:ADMINTOOLS a look-see, it's good to know how to do things the hard way but don't wear yourself out :) My door is always open if you need anything. Looking forward to working with you! — MusikAnimal ^talk 05:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
• Congrats! I was trilled to see your nom and work along side you in the past. Enjoy your mop... Tiggerjay (talk) 06:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
• Congratulations! :) Sam Walton (talk) 12:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
• Congrats and good luck! -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:24, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
• About time – what took you so long? Very good news, well done! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:18, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
• Thanks for running, and for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
• Best to you in your newer endeavor. Congratulations. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations on your successful RFA! Allow me to impart the words of wisdom I received from the puppy after my RFA passed – almost ten long, sordid, I-really-should-have-found-a-better-hobby years ago:

Remember you will always protect the wrong version. (I got nothing here. It's inevitable.) Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. Without exception, you will pick the wrong one to do. (See #5.) Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll. (You'll attract many more of those now, because mop. They must like to drink the dirty water in the bucket.) Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block, because really, what else is there to live for? Remember that when you make these errors, someone will be more than happy to point them out to you in dazzling clarity and descriptive terminology. It will not be a personal attack because we are admins and, therefore, we are all rouge anyway. Finally, remember to contact me if you ever need assistance, and I will do what I am able. Katietalk 00:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales, because if it did, it would be much, much better. All rights released under GFDL.

• Congratulations Ivan. I was travelling over Christmas so completely missed the boat. Welcome to the team of janitors! Deryck C. 17:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you everyone who supported my RfA! And thank you also to everyone who asked questions and provided constructive criticism, your input is very much appreciated and I have a lot to consider going forward. I promise you all I will try very hard not to delete the main page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 02:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

It's okay, you can't actually delete the main page now. I've tried. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

As I recall, the last time the main page was deleted it was because someone said it couldn't be done. ;) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Sock?

Hi there. Can you please take another look at the SPI casepage I posted? The account HarleyTomar has exactly same editing pattern with the PlikoraT socks[4]. All the confirmed socks listed here[5] have exactly same contribution and edit summary! Malunrenta (talk) 13:31, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

• @Malunrenta: I'll take a look. The best thing to do would be to add your evidence to the PlikoraT case, since the two cases don't seem to be connected. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:10, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

You mean with a new CU request so just adding the evidence as a comment? Malunrenta (talk) 15:15, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually, don't do anything yet, it's already messy :) I'll add evidence in somehow if I find that they're related. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:17, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

OK, thank you. Here is another[6]. All these accounts have this unusual pattern of creating userpage and talkpage with four tildes as their first edit. Malunrenta (talk) 15:28, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Grey jay

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Grey jay you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 10:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

ItaloCelt84

Thanks very much for this. I was pretty sure it was a sock but had no idea who and no time to follow it up. Doug Weller talk 14:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

FYI Wikipedia:User categories

Hi Ivanvector/Archive 5, You may be interested in Wikipedia_talk:User_categories#Request_for_comment_on_our_proposed_policy_for_users_remaining_in_redlinked_categories. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)please ping me

Yo Ive...

I dunno but would you kindly look into this SPI page, as our dear friend Bertrand's at it again with his hoaxing habits? Blake Gripling (talk) 05:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

@Blakegripling ph: thanks for your report and your note here, this isn't a case I'm terribly familiar with. Handled now, anyway. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Grey jay

The article Grey jay you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Grey jay for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 10:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

RfC Notice

There is a Request for Comment posted at Talk:New York Daily News#Request for Comment. You are being notified as a registered editor who has commented on that article's talk page or in a related move review. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:United States presidential election, 2016

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:United States presidential election, 2016. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Alicia4eva

Well, it's me User:Alicia4eva. Unfortunetly my mum changed all my passwords, making it impossible for me to work properly as an editor. I know that the book title hasn't been translated into English, but since I got some knowledge in Swedish, I translated the book title. If I have done a mistake, I beg your pardon. I know that it was a bot, correcting me.134.147.188.105 (talk) 14:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.147.188.105 (talk)

@134.147.188.105: hi there, sorry you've lost your password. If you still have access to the email address you used to set up your account, you can get the software to reset your password. See the directions at Wikipedia:FAQ/Technical#How do I recover a password I have forgotten? If you don't have access to that email then I'm not sure anything can be done to recover access to your old account, but since your old account isn't blocked you can go ahead and just create a new one if you like.

Regarding the translation, your contribution is appreciated, but we usually require reliable sources for translations that are not obvious to English speakers (because this Wikipedia is written for an English-speaking audience). The problem is that languages don't typically match up perfectly, so two Swedish-speakers who also speak English might disagree on exactly how to interpret the meaning of the Swedish title and properly reflect it in English, so we rely on published sources. You can probably help by locating such a source. I tried to find one myself but Swedish is not a language that I'm very familiar with so I don't really know where to look, and the one source I did find wasn't really reliable and didn't agree with your translation. Do you think you can find a source? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:53, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch case

Can you tell me what i did wrong? I gathered all the diffs, what do you mean by frivolous? GabiloveAdol (talk) 15:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

By "frivolous", what we mean is that your case appears to be clear retaliation for being accused of something on another noticeboard. I haven't been following, but please don't do that. Your case has no merit, anyway, although you did gather diffs there is no evidence of sockpuppetry as the accounts involved are clearly not operated by the same person. Having a lot of people telling you you're doing something wrong is not the same as sockpuppetry, it's just that you're doing something wrong and a lot of people have noticed. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Ivanvector I haven't been accused of anything, Ms_Sarah_Welch was caught using a quote from another and using it on another source, as it states in the diff. I used a admin template, and Ms_Sarah_Welch somehow knew that Buckshot06 was watching. Buckshot06 ignored it even though she was caught by at least 2 users(in the diffs) On my talkpage i said as soon i figure out how to work with diffs, i would display it nothing else. Then Buckshot06 said that was a unjustified attack, how? I never ever cursed, just said that i would show the diffs. They as a of 6 group didn't came after me, but i saw them on noticeboards working together, and in the Oromo talk page. They are also editing as a group, if you look at the times that they are active.

Please look at the diffs if you want, and if they don't work edit war together, stroll the same pages together you can block my account. GabiloveAdol (talk) 15:46, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@GabiloveAdol: you continue to be frivolous. Above, for example, you again allege "Ms_Sarah_Welch was caught using a quote from another and using it on another source". Here is a fair use image of the relevant text from Donald N. Levine book (this image will vanish within the next few hours). Levine clearly mentions Herbert Lewis, despite your strange repetitive claims of "was caught" and worse. In wikipedia, we try to summarize reliable source faithfully to the best of our abilities, while keeping copyvio and plag policies in mind. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Account rename, previous account block request and user info

Hi Ivanvector!

I've decided to take you up on your offer to help me rename my account. How would I be able to do this? I would also like to know how to block me previous account.

Another question, do you know if the user Karst is admin or not? I added three pending releases to Spinnin' Premium and there was a rather blunt request from him. I've also noticed he's nominated a lot of pages for record labels to be deleted (Spinnin' Premium survived, hooray!). Taking a look at the investigation about me it transpires that it was also him who started it. I'd like to know if he's a standard user or admin or something else. If he's a standard user then he needs to change his tone to one that exudes less superiority.

Thanks! Fox Tanawa-Bamba (talk) 15:18, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

@Fox Tanawa-Bamba: let's deal with these two things separately.

1. If you still have access to your other account, you can log into it and request to be blocked (see WP:SELFBLOCK; feel free to log in and request it on this page and I'll take care of it). Unfortunately we can't block one account at the request of a different account, but if you can't log into it anyway then you probably don't need to worry about it.
2. To request renaming your current account, see WP:RENAME. As I understand it, your previous edits will be associated with your new account name, so if you're thinking that you can rename your account and pretend to be a new user, you can't.

Karst is not an administrator, but he is a very experienced user, he's been editing several years longer than I have. He is right that we normally don't write about a musical recording which has not been released (or is pending release). We have a general notability guideline which in a nutshell says that we only write about things which have established notability, and pending recordings almost never qualify because they aren't written about in reliable sources. It looks like you created a few articles about pending releases without providing any reliable sources to establish notability, and Karst was letting you know that those articles would likely be deleted if you didn't add sources. Don't take it personally, it can take some trial and error to learn what is okay to write about and what isn't; it's not that we don't appreciate your contributions but we just can't write about everything. Let me know if I can be of more help and I'll do what I can. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

FA co-nomination

I reckon this is within striking distance of FA-hood. wanna jump in the snake pit? I've been there a few times Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:25, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

aah never mind, I reckon it'll go ok. So have co-nominated it at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Grey jay/archive1. Just watchlist and be ready....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:58, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

No problem, definitely interested and fine that you mentioned me as co-nom. I've been taking a break away from Wikipedia for the past couple days for no particular reason, this is a nice thing to come back to. I'll have a look through the FAC review and see where I can help. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

DYK

Hello! Your submission of Grey jay at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:36, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

João Afonso Telo, Count of Barcelos

Hello Ivanvector, I translated today the article I had created at es.wiki. It is confusing with so many namesakes, so, just to be on the safe side, I will go over the sources that I used again to confirm. Will get back to you as soon as I do. Regards, --Maragm (talk) 14:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi again, I just checked the source I had used to reference the Count of Barcelo's involvement in the battle. On p. 178, note 715 (work by Garcia de Pina, which is online) the author clearly says that it was João Afonso Telo, the brother of Queen Leonor Teles, the subject of the article I created. I'm going to check Fernão Lopes again just in case the author mistook him for his namesake (I think his uncle), the 4th Count of Barcelos. Regards, --Maragm (talk) 15:35, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Just checked the Chronica do Senhor rei D. Fernando by Fernão Lopes. Added it as source (Vol. III) which you can also check online. On p. 29 he says: "...Almirante era d'esta frota o conde D. João Affonso Tello, irmão da rainha..." again, confirming that it was this João Affonso, Queen Leonor's brother. Let me know if this convinces you. Regards, --Maragm (talk) 16:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for verifying, I'm glad the information is correct. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Now I come for your help. With so many namesakes things can get pretty confusing. I'm almost ready to create another article for the first count of Barcelos who appears in sources with the same exact name as the 6th count, the one above. So as to avoid confusion, what would you say if I called them (in the title of the articles) João Afonso Telo, 1^st Count of Barcelos; João Afonso Telo, 4^th Count of Barcelos; João Afonso Telo, 6^th Count of Barcelos?? Later, I could create a disambiguation page to include these and others who have the same name and who will probably have their article in the future. Many thanks, --Maragm (talk) 20:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC) (this name (Joao Afonso Telo) appears as such in the sources that I'm using, without Meneses added to it)

@Maragm: I think the way you've done it is just fine. It would be good if they had a second name (like de Meneses) to tell them apart, but if their names are all the same, then adding "nth Count of Barcelos" is a fine way to name them. The articles can always be renamed if new information comes up later. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Possible Synthelabobabe21 sock?

Hey, just a question - I recently revoked talk page access for Open Source 2.0 since he was blocked and was using his talk page to post some pretty random things, so there wasn't any chance he was getting unblocked. I'm not entirely sure what he was trying to accomplish, but at one point it looks like he was trying to say that he was a sock of Synthelabobabe21 or something along those lines. He mentioned this user, at least under a different spelling. It looks like both engaged in disruptive editing, but I'm not as familiar with Synthelabobabe21's editing as you would be. He may just be posting random nonsense, but I figured that it'd be worth at least mentioning. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@Tokyogirl79: yes, I think you're right. What sets this user apart from one of many non-English nonsense vandals is that they recreate deleted articles previously created by other socks. It's not much to go on but it's enough of a pattern to establish sockpuppetry. I've requested a CheckUser to look for other accounts. Thanks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Stuart_McLean - Ivan

i submitted from reliable sources, WN action news — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.200.12.33 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

obvious socks at AIV

Thanks for [7]. I had either forgotten or was never aware of the "obvious socks" exemption for AIV. Lesson learned. Meters (talk) 23:51, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Grey jay

On 22 February 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Grey jay, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the grey jay builds its nests in late winter, while the forest is still deep in snow? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Grey jay. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Grey jay), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Mifter (talk) 00:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Fangusu attacking Tights

I noticed you had reverted vandalism on Tights in the past citing that it was User:Fangusu. I wanted you to know that it appears to be happening again. I've requested page protection, but wanted to keep you in the loop. --KNHaw ^(talk) 01:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@KNHaw: you're right, those edits are Fangusu, I've been following for the past few days but other users have so far been dealing with it. She will be back, pending changes will do nothing because she'll just hammer the PC queue with requests, and/or she'll pick on her other favourite pages instead. If you've reverted her she will probably ask on your talk page to ignore the rules and overturn her ban, which of course you can't, and then she'll also ask Steel1943. It's a very specific pattern. The only thing that is really effective is blocking her IP range, which is difficult because she uses several and often edits from universities. If you've noticed anything else and would like to add, there is a long-term abuse case at WP:LTA/Fangusu and a rolling archive of sockpuppetry investigations at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fangusu. Thanks for your note. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Ashbridge Estate

On 7 March 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ashbridge Estate, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that descendants of the family who settled Toronto's Ashbridge Estate (pictured) were still living on the same property over 200 years later? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ashbridge Estate. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Ashbridge Estate), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Mifter (talk) 12:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Arise from Darkness

Hello Ivanvector - I wanted to see if I could retrieve the former article Arise from Darkness (a feature film) or if I can sincerely request your permission to submit a new article as a draft. I do believe the former article had notable references (Chicago Tribune, ABC, WGN, NBC) as the film was released in theaters last month, however the user who created the article was banned thus the page was deleted. In addition, I do want to notify you that I have permission from the film studio to try and retrieve the article or create a new one. Also, I'm not getting paid, I'm aware it is against Wikipedia's guidelines. I come to you with sincerity and honesty for guidance (TheycallmeDoug (talk) 22:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC))

@TheycallmeDoug: hi there, my apologies for taking a while to get back to you. I see that you tried to post on another admin's page as well but you seem to have caught them at a bad time. I thought about this, and I'm not comfortable at this time unlocking the pages or restoring the drafts. Because of the history of spam and vandalism it's pretty likely that anyone else who tries to create a page at this title will be accused of being another sockpuppet, and the same goes if you were to recreate the pages using the old content. If you're interested in writing an article, I think it would be best for you to create either one of them in your sandbox, and then ask someone (me or any administrator involved in the case) to have a look, and if it meets our guidelines we can move the page to the correct title at that time or suggest improvements. As for having permission from the company it's irrelevant, we don't allow article subjects to dictate what we do or do not write about, so that we can maintain a neutral point of view, so as long as what you want to write about meets our standards of inclusion and your content is verifiable with citations to reliable and independent sources, you can pretty much write about anything you want. If you need more guidance as to how these guidelines apply to films and studios specifically, please have a look at the specific recommendations for organizations (for film studios), for films themselves, and consider browsing the resources at WikiProject Film.

Pinging There'sNoTime as a courtesy regarding your post on his talk page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Ivanvector for responding back. Through sandbox I can try to recreate the page with new content and reach out to you afterwards. Perhaps you can move the page to the correct title when you feel it's appropriate or suggest improvements. From my research I believe the vandalism occurred from a Fiverr.com user whose account was banned due to complaints or cancelations from buyers. My hunch is that there was a purposeful sabotage against the movie/studio (see Ave Fenix Pictures and Film Invasion L.A.); therefore by replicating the article quickly any recreation of the page or affiliations would get deleted. Hence the honest Wikipedian who recreates the article using notability to showcase relevance would be deemed a stockpuppet. (TheycallmeDoug (talk) 19:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC))

Move request

Hi there, I made this request in uncontroversial moves at WP:RM but was told to hand it over to a checkuser clerk. Since User:Bigjimsanders is the earliest checkuser-confirmed sock account[8] of the individual known as User:The abominable Wiki troll (created January 2007 versus April 2009), a move of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The abominable Wiki troll → Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bigjimsanders should take place (this may involve manually doing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The abominable Wiki troll/Archive → Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bigjimsanders/Archive, I'm not sure). The "abominable" pages are probably best kept as redirects. Thanks for your help. 82.132.212.145 (talk) 19:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Yes, we do usually reserve SPI case moves to clerks, they're not as simple as simply moving the page to a new title and there are several other housekeeping steps involved. This case in particular has a long history that would be disrupted by moving, while moving it to a new name carries little benefit, so I think it will be better to leave it as it is. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:03, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

SPI

My apologies for being so hasty with it as well - I will say that it's definitely about the same person and I'm working on something but I'll wait a bit and see what happens with the article. In any case, it's bordering on a hoax and total lack of notability (but in the interest of seeing how it plays out, I'm not going to nominate quite yet.) I also find it highly suspicious for anyone to write about this person as they're totally unremarkable and the iMDB profile is...less than reliable but I understand that the SPI was not adequate at this point ;) CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:11, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I see a connection with the external links now too. I don't think it's the same editor who was obviously writing about themselves, but I do think it's the same subject. Could be paid editing, could be one of the other sockfarms that's been active recently. I don't have enough to go on at the moment but you're pretty good at sniffing this out. I'll wait and see. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: I call what you're talking about pulling an OPP - not the same editor(s) but definitely coming from whatever Fiverr-like site that has no standards. I wonder what having a " bachelor and master degree in Wikipedia" is like? ^{see Beingstop's creation for reference} CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)Just one step from having a Phd in bollocks, I imagine  ;) — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 14:38, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

SPI or AN/I

Hayek79 has retired [an account] in protest at treatment by administrators and created a new one (i.e. L.R. Wormwood) while redirecting the old one there. This runs awry of WP:Alternative accounts. As you are involved in matters of this nature much more than I, and consequently understand it much better, is WP:SPI or WP:AN/I the appropriate place to raise the matter (or on the off chance I'm mistaken and this is appropriate, neither)? Best Regards, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 04:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

@Godsy: Hmm, this is a tough one. Generally, the appropriate venue is SPI, with a link to the user's recent spell at AN/I in your evidence. However I think in this case what we have is a botched clean start amidst a tantrum. Hayek79 was blocked for disruptive editing at Talk:Alternative for Germany; while they were blocked they created L.R. Wormwood and made some userspace edits which clearly disclosed the connection. Other than those few edits they did in fact sit out the block with both accounts, and there was another discussion among involved administrators which already acknowledged this situation. Otherwise they've only edited with the new account and only in areas where they hadn't previously run into trouble, so I think blocking them now would be purely punitive. And I don't think it's necessary to make any note at SPI now: if it does come up again it'll take a clerk about two seconds to discover the connection.

@Beyond My Ken and Bishonen: I don't intend to take any action here but you may be interested in this since you were previously involved. I haven't pinged the user because if we're not going to do anything then it would just be bothering them for no reason. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:35, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there's a problem, since the old account is linked to the new one by redirects. It would have been better if Wormwood hadn't removed the "formerly Hayek79" notice from their user page, but I doubt that's a blockable offense. Although they are clearly trying to distance themselves from the Hayek79 account, the user page of the new account is an exact copy of the old one, taking credit for the edits of Hayek79, so the connection is pretty obvious. I don't see this as de facto avoiding scrutiny, and suggest that Wormwood be allowed to edit freely. If issues arise that are similar to the problems seen with Hayek79, then those issues can be dealt with, keeping Wormwood's backstory in mind. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:34, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I would add that Bishonen is aware of the situation, and had the opportunity to block Wormwood if she felt that was appropriate, but chose not to. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:36, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

• I didn't notice the discussion at User talk:Bishonen#Hayek79. Thanks for taking a look at the situation. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 13:50, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

3RR vs 1RR

I didn't want to go off-tangent in the ANI discussion but 1RR is way too strict in many cases. There are thousands of examples of that happening every day, frequently with new editors. Example: They add, "X is the best actor ever". You revert and warn. They revert. We don't want that addition stuck in our article until someone else notices. Same with someone sticking, "The band goes out for lunch every Saturday" in a school article, adding Fred's AntiVirus Eater in the list of antivirus programs, "The SEAL team purposefully killed innocent civilians during their raid...", etc, etc --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:49, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

NeilN yeah, you're right. Sometimes I just need someone rational to talk me down off my crazy reform ideas. I do kind of think something should be done to the 3RR policy to specify that you don't just get three free reverts, that edit warring is determined by intent, but it's good to have a bright line too I guess. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Turn "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." red and make it blink :-) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

You'll support that when I propose it at WP:VPP, yes? ;) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Of course! --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Sandbox - New 'Arise from Darkness' article

Hello Ivanvector -Through sandbox I have created a new article with new content in relation to the movie Arise from Darkness. I'm hoping to get your review and if it meets your guidelines to furthermore move the article to draft and/or consult me on how to move forward. I did discover that Arise from Darkness has a movie page in the Spanish version of Wikipedia (it is a Latino themed film) Arise from Darkness. Perhaps this factors into the pro-advantage in republishing the article... I do appreicate your guidance, sincerely yours (TheycallmeDoug (talk) 00:47, 26 March 2017 (UTC))

Hi there TheycallmeDoug, I'm sorry but I can't find your article, it doesn't seem to be in your sandbox. Could you give me a link to it? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:11, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello Ivanvector, it's strange but likewise I'm unable to find the link to the new Arise from Darkness article I submitted. I can see it in my contributions, but with no link. Here is the sandbox history https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:TheycallmeDoug/sandbox&action=edit Much thanks and I apologize if I did something technically wrong (TheycallmeDoug (talk) 23:17, 27 March 2017 (UTC))

(talk page watcher) I've fixed the issue (broken HTML comment) and removed the duplicate content from the draft. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:14, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2017

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

Administrator changes

TheDJ

Xnuala • CJ • Oldelpaso • Berean Hunter • Jimbo Wales • Andrew c • Karanacs • Modemac • Scott

Guideline and policy news

• Following a discussion on the backlog of unpatrolled files, consensus was found to create a new user right for autopatrolling file uploads. Implementation progress can be tracked on Phabricator.
• The BLPPROD grandfather clause, which stated that unreferenced biographies of living persons were only eligible for proposed deletion if they were created after March 18, 2010, has been removed following an RfC.
• An RfC has closed with consensus to allow proposed deletion of files. The implementation process is ongoing.
• After an unsuccessful proposal to automatically grant IP block exemption, consensus was found to relax the criteria for granting the user right from needing it to wanting it.

Technical news

• After a recent RfC, moved pages will soon be featured in a queue similar to Special:NewPagesFeed and require patrolling. Moves by administrators, page movers, and autopatrolled editors will be automatically marked as patrolled.
• Cookie blocks have been deployed. This extends the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user if they switch accounts, even under a new IP.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Inlinetext

I think you should just go ahead and indef block him/revoke talk page access for both the legal threats and the threats of harassment and vandalism. The guy has a screw loose. Look at what he posted on his talk page. --Tarage (talk) 02:29, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Amin al-Husseini

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Amin al-Husseini. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Replace links to "Wikipedia:Wikipedia:..." with "Wikipedia:..."

Per your participation in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 20#Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Five pillars, you may be interested in a similar request at Wikipedia:Bot requests#Replace links to redirects with "Wikipedia:Wikipedia:" in their titles. Steel1943 (talk) 16:13, 6 April 2017 (UTC)