User talk:Ivanvector/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

BLPSOURCES

Hi Ivanvector. I noticed this revert. Can you please be very careful in the future not to restore material sourced to tabloid journalism as you did there? --John (talk) 15:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Banned means banned, John. If we're not even going to bother trying to enforce a highly disruptive editor's indefinite block, stop pretending it means shit and unblock them. It'll save me a lot of button pushing. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:55, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I see. So you value following your interpretation of Wikipedia rules over preventing damage to real life subjects? That seems... counter-intuitive, don't you think? --John (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps if this editor ever took your advice, or anyone's, or in the case of this edit they made any effort at all to explain why the article subject's own words ought to be considered damaging to that subject to a degree requiring immediate removal under the BLP policy, and not just part of an ongoing bull-headed crusade to expunge one particular source from Wikipedia, they might not have earned a community 1RR restriction to stop their disruptive behaviour, repeated ignorance of which leaves them indefinitely blocked by a progression of administrators acting in good faith. Frankly, your ongoing encouragement of this misconduct is unbecoming an administrator, is insulting to the community which placed the restriction, and does no service to the policy you (and I) hold in such high regard. Your time and energy would be much better spent admonishing this behaviour and encouraging other potential crusaders to not get started in the first place. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:42, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

That's all good stuff, but you didn't answer the question. Never mind, I'll answer it for you. BLP trumps all other Wikipedia policies. If you want to go to AN/I to complain about this or rely in the future on using it in an unblock notice that the contrary applies, that'll be your own choice, but don't say you weren't politely warned. --John (talk) 19:48, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions advice

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

--John (talk) 19:53, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

You're being a bit of a jerk, aren't you, John? (A notice of DS is not "mandatory".)--Bbb23 (talk) 20:01, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I edit conflicted with Bbb23 as I was leaving a similar comment. You can be "right" without coming off as an officious bully, or at least you can if you're doing it right. Nobody on this project is going to respond well to this type of aggressive rebuking. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

A wee note

The checkuser tool is available on UTRS (to checkusers only of course). You need to click the "reveal CU data" box on the bottom left of the appeal and input a reason for making the request. This will create a log note that you have checked the account. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I see that now, thanks. It wouldn't have occurred to me to check anyway, like I said I was hanging on to a bad assumption about linking accounts between here and UTRS. Guess I know better now, at Legacypac's expense unfortunately. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:19, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

We are all human and make mistakes, it's how we react when we realize we have made said mistake that demonstrates the measure of a man. I've found that a heartfelt "mea culpa" garners much respect.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:25, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Green Party of Prince Edward Island

I dispute your changes to Green Party of Prince Edward Island. Let's discuss on the article's talk page. Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:17, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular

Administrators must secure their accounts The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised. Use strong, unique passwords for your Wikipedia account and associated email Change your password now if your Wikipedia account password or email password is reused on another website, exposed, or weak Enable two-factor authentication now for improved security

View additional information

Why have I received this message? All administrators are receiving it. What prompted you to send this message? Recently, several Wikipedia admin accounts were compromised. The admin accounts were desysopped on an emergency basis. In the past, the Committee often resysopped admin accounts as a matter of course once the admin was back in control of their account. The committee has updated its guidelines. Admins may now be required to undergo a fresh Request for Adminship (RfA) after losing control of their account. What do I need to do? Only to follow the instructions in this message. Check that your password is unique (not reused across sites). Check that your password is strong (not simple or guessable). Enable Two-factor authentication (2FA), if you can, to create a second hurdle for attackers. How can I find out more about two-factor authentication (2FA)? You can find out more about 2FA at m:2FA.

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:54, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I guess the committee just invents policy as it sees fit now. That's not alarming at all. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 01:09, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Ivanvector, I do have a lot of respect for you, so I would very much like to hear how you believe we're inventing any policy. What do you believe we're changing, because I see this notice to be a faithful restatement of WP:ADMIN#Security, which was written by the community. In fact, I would argue that the previous practice of routinely resysopping without considering whether admins followed account security requirements was creating policy by fiat, in the sense of invalidating the community policy at that section. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:07, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) BU Rob, where are you getting this from? WP:ADMIN#Security says the opposite of what you claim it says; it's unambiguously explicit that resysopping decisions in these circumstances are purely a matter of crat discretion and Arbcom has no authority. (Discretion on resysopping temporarily desysopped administrators is left to bureaucrats, who will consider whether the rightful owner has been correctly identified, and their view on the incident and the management and security (including likely future security) of the account. if you want chapter and verse.) ‑ Iridescent 15:19, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I've responded on my talk page as well, but to answer here: The bureaucrats have the authority to resysop when the account is secure again, and I'm not denying that. ArbCom has the authority to determine if the admin violated community policy egregiously based on how they failed to secure their account initially, which would be an example of misconduct. Theoretically, if an admin entirely failed to meet the requirements at WP:ADMIN#Security, ArbCom could desysop for cause, just like we can in any case of admin misconduct. If we couldn't, the section would be rendered unenforceable, since the bureaucrats have clearly communicated time and time again that they are not tasked with exercising discretion in choosing whether to resysop, in favor of deferring to ArbCom on such questions. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:10, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not interested in trying to explain the overstep in policy again with the Committee which seems so comfortable repeatedly creating powers for itself. I will lay out my issues with the Committee's actions in the statement I'm working on. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:23, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello Ivanvector. Since the ACN thread is so convoluted, I just wanted to make sure that you understand that we're not attempting to make 2FA mandatory, or saying that we will desysop people for not having it. That was purely our poor wording of the message. I realise that you also have strong feelings about the issue of whether this is ArbCom's or crats' bailiwick—which, as I've said at ACN, I don't really understand, but that's your prerogative—but I wanted to check that we weren't losing a CheckUser over a simple misunderstanding. Thanks. – Joe (talk) 16:08, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Your actions don't match your words. Whatever you're trying to backpedal here, the Committee has clearly decided for itself that while you say "2FA won't be mandatory", you're not going to allow someone to get their rights back unless they accept your "recommendation" to enable it, as it seems you did with Necrothesp recently. Which makes it a de facto requirement. Whether you say "enable 2FA to get your rights back" or "enable 2FA or else face a reconfirmation", the effect is the same. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:17, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I see, you think we intended to make it mandatory but are backpedalling because of the reaction? That is honestly not what happened. Right after the first draft of the message, here I tried to clarify that 2FA was an optional extra and here Mkdw made that even clearer. Unfortunately that wording didn't make it into the final version.

With Necrothesp, asking him to enable 2FA was in response to the specific circumstances of the attack that worked on him (obviously confidential). It came about as a compromise between those arbs who didn't want to resysop at all and those who felt we should do it as a matter of course. If I remember correctly, the idea of making requiring 2FA for every compromise was briefly floated in our discussions and very quickly rejected for the same reasons others are saying now: there's no community mandate for it, it would be unenforceable, 2FA is less important than a strong password, MediaWiki's 2FA implementation isn't very good, etc.

I am not sure if that allays your concerns but I will hope you will at least take a moment to consider whether your initial reaction was to what the committee actually intended with this message, or just how we ham-fistedly expressed it. – Joe (talk) 16:35, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

My reaction is based on my view that this is merely the latest in a pattern of incidents of the current Committee attempting to address community issues by fiat, imposing undesirable (or blatantly against policy or consensus) solutions without seeking community input, and then attempting to create a policy justification for those actions once objections arise. In short, see my reply to Rob above. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:43, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Although we have rarely crossed paths, I have always thought of you as a highly capable contributor, administrator, and functionary. Most of we arbitrators have just spent much of our Saturdays discussing the costs and benefits of amending, clarifying, retracting, or leaving the message. We have now had posted a clarification. By having discussions with a number of users, I think we have covered many angles of the debate about ability and authority to act. Would any of this convince you that every involved user – whether or not they are currently volunteering as an arbitrator – is trying to act in the project's best interests? I hope you will reconsider your resignation, which I can genuinely say made me a little less willing to sign on to Wikipedia this weekend. The healthiest communities talk this stuff out. Be well. AGK ■ 22:06, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate the time that you and the committee as a whole must spend on the thankless task of arbitration, I always have. I don't think for even a second that you are not acting in what you believe to be the best interest of the project. But I do think you are acting with presumed dictatorial authority. I'm not privy to the conversations, but in all the time you've spent on this pronouncement, did none of you ever consider that this is something that should be proposed to the community for approval, instead of issued as a proclamation? That's the behaviour and attitude that I find unsatisfactory, and I'm going to continue to speak out against it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:42, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Please reconsider

I applaud the stand you're taking and stand behind you. But please consider another way of making that stand, without resigning rights. The last thing we need right now is to lose a good functionary. Aside from being able to perform the checkuser tasks (which, in and of itself, is a great help to the wiki), you're also able to see things and be part of lists, so that you can monitor what's going on from high up and inside, and vocalize any concerns. It would be a huge loss to us rank and file to lose a trusted editor in such positions. I want you on that wall, I need you on that wall. A much better way for you to make a stand would be by standing for election for Arbcom the next chance you get. Thank you. Leviv ich 17:16, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

(+1) Ditto the above statement. ∯WBG^converse 19:07, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate the votes of confidence. To be clear, I am not formally resigning the checkuser permission. See my statement of protest (which is very much a draft at this point). Related to my protest, I will not be accessing the checkuser function, and as directed by the functionaries inactivity policy and as a matter of good security I have requested to have the permission temporarily removed. I'm not leaving, I'll be back, you have my word. I'm just going to do something else for a bit. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:15, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Your statement about ArbCom

I just read User:Ivanvector/2019 Arbitration Committee protest and it is quite a statement, hard to disagree with. But I think giving the ultimatum that the members of the committee must resign is very unlikely to happen, and might have penned you into a corner. So I hope you are okay with following through on your words. If not, I think that's okay. We say things in the heat of the moment that we might reconsider the following day. But if you are standing by your words, kudos! Either way, I appreciate you taking a stand. This was definitely an unexpected message. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:44, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Just looked at your cat's blog and I'm melting. You should have a cuteness warning. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I respect Ivanvector because he is one to follow through and as he said, it's a protest, yes - but he will be back, so it's all good! --qedk (t 桜 c) 09:15, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

It's become clear that some arbitrators believe their authority is unlimited, by the Committee's actions and declarations since the last election. The fact the recent "do this or else" message was discussed by the Committee and allowed to be published shows there's someone there who believes it was acceptable. The discussions were held in private so it's impossible to know who said what, thus the only valid response is to demand that the entire Committee resign. I'm well aware that they won't: if any member of the Committee had any personal principles they would have objected to the notice before its publication, but only defenses have been written up to this point, counting the insufficient "we're sorry you don't like that we're doing this" apology. Hence my protest.

I'm one functionary of dozens and one administrator of hundreds, so my absence is unlikely to have any significant impact other than symbolically. But I believe strongly that members of a community have a duty to use their status and privilege to stand up to oppression. And so yes, I am aware that this is going to be long-term, and am prepared for the consequences. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:08, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Oppression, really? If you feel so strongly about wanting your password to be 'admin123' then go ahead. I promise I'll vote against the emergency desysop motion when your account blanks the main page. – Joe (talk) 11:15, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Well I don't know about anyone else, but this outburst has certainly convinced me that you don't think 2FA is a requirement for any account to be considered "secure". Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:27, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Considering I and other arbs have explicitly told you that several times now, I've no interest in "convincing" someone who is so quick to assume that I'm a liar. I'll leave you to your tantrum now, but please do consider fixing the blatant factual errors. – Joe (talk) 11:44, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh look, another arbitrator deflecting community criticism with blatant personal attacks. Nothing to see here, I'm sure. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:53, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@Joe Roe and Ivanvector: I understand both sides of the story, let's not delve into taking potshots at each other, we have open discussions considering AC actions and Ivanvector's protest. --qedk (t 桜 c) 15:12, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ivanvector. Take care and I hope to see you back soon. Trijnstel_talk 12:17, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Information about MediaWiki user

Hello, i'm Tomybrz, a sysop on MediaWiki,

I just saw this topic on support desk on Mediawiki about a user blocked by a range ip, because you are the one did block, I let you handle this case. Regards.

Tomybrz Bip Bip 14:15, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Tomybrz, thanks for your note. I no longer have access to the private logs to see what my rationale was for blocking the range. I'll respond to the mediawiki thread. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:32, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Just for my edification, is this because the named user at Mediawiki is trying to create an account at en.wiki? Your block shouldn't prevent them from doing anything at other projects unless mediawiki is in some way special.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:48, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

It seems that they've created their account at mediawiki but it is not unifying to enwiki, I presume because of the block. The block is anon-only, I don't think this should be blocking them. If I just create the account locally I don't know if it will link, so I'm kind of lost as to what to do. I advised them to apply to ACC but that might cause the same problem. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:50, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

When one creates an account at a particular project, there are a few umbrella projects where the account is automatically registered. However, AFAIK, language wikis are not included. Therefore, GlorybetotheFather's creation of an account at mediawiki, whether there was an IP block or not, would not affect their ability to create an account here. That said, I'm not a global expert: @Ajraddatz:?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:18, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

If the local block prevents account creation then it is probably blocking the process. Changing the block to allow account creation temporarily would work, as would creating an account for the user at a different name and then manually merging it with the global account. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 15:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like changing the block is the easier of the two options. Ivanvector himself could do it, but he might feel uncomfortable doing so because it is a checkuser block. I'm willing to do it myself as long as I understand in advance how "temporary" it is. We don't know a damned thing about the user's behavior from the two edits they've made at mediawiki. The username itself, though, is suspicious.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:48, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Looking more at the account in question, they only have two edits across Wikimedia, both related to discussing this block. It's probably reasonable to send them to door #3: request a new account at ACC. They can usurp the old account name if they really want to. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 16:12, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I guess I shouldn't touch it because it's a checkuser block, even if it is my checkuser block. Going from memory/SOP here: I blocked the range because I ran a check and found that the range was being frequently used by sockmasters (more than one, apparently) for disruption over a long-enough term to warrant a one-year block, but of course I don't know now what accounts I was matching up. If you check the range you'll likely see that they're blocked, and could use that for a comparison with a global CU if you can find one willing. Otherwise you can direct them to ACC with its 3-month queue and paucity of checkuser attention (I was one of a small handful of active CUs there and we were already pretty badly shorthanded).

On investigation: the user at mediawiki says they've encountered IP blocks stopping them from editing enwiki before, and it's anonblocks all the way down so I guess that this is their first time creating an account. I ran through the IP range's history and to be honest I don't see anything inspiring confidence that constructive contributions are going to come from this range. But I suppose we can assume good faith: most sockmasters won't bother going to this level of effort to evade an account creation block, they just go do something else until it expires. If the mediawiki user is the block target it should become obvious very quickly, and then you'll be able to connect them via CU.

tl;dr: do what you think is best. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

User Fæ:

I was not sure where else to post it as it was raised on Wikipedia (not at commons and I am not aware of where to post it at commons (note, not aware not wasn't aware). I have also never had to deal with death threats before, other then at ANIs launched by others, so was not aware even of the correct action here.Slatersteven (talk) 16:05, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't meaning to chastise you for posting there, just making you aware, and removing the info at the same time. The thing about things like this is we want to give the incidents as little visibility as possible, so the advised thing to do is just email emergency@ and let them deal with it, and not post on-wiki about it at all. It's not expected at all that everyone is aware of that, of course. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:03, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Stop

Stop deleting my request and protect Chuck E. Cheese (character)

Learn how to write a proper request or stop disrupting the page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Protect the page.

Add your request at the BOTTOM of the list, not the top, give a reason why you think the page needs to be protected, and sign your request. There are instructions and examples in the blue box at the top of the page. You should have time to read it in the hour that the requests page is protected. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:47, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Request For Protected Bepanah Pyaar article

I request you to have protected this article Bepanah Pyaar because this article is many IP user try to make unhelpful changes so I request you sir accept my request and protect this article at least 1 month, Thank you. Goodd-002 ^(chatme) 17:58, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@Goodd-002: sorry, I am currently not participating administratively in any areas covered by active arbitration enforcement, as a protest. Please see WP:RFPP for instructions on how to add your protection request to the queue. Thanks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:00, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

About reverting my edit on Jaiveer

Hi, You reverted Speedy Deletion, that's not why I've come here, the author of Jaiveer is creating single line articles and I don't think articles are within Wikipedia guidelines, That's, why I targeted the user and was tagging Author's articles you see creator's recent articles & his username, is also represented (News Paper) so please have a look at author's contributions as user has been continuously making one line stubs in Mainspace. WikiLover97 (talk) 17:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

The best I would do is advise them to do it in the draft space. Although they're creating very short stubs, they're clearly referenced and accurate. They are certainly NOT nonsense nor pure vandalism. Please stop your disruptive tagging. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:37, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Category:Indonesia rail transport color templates

Thank you for restoring. Should the talk page history also be retrieved? Also, this entire issue seems to stem from the fact that when a new Documentation subpage (Template:…/doc) is created, it explicitly states <!-- Please place categories where indicated at the bottom of this page and interwikis at Wikidata (see [[Wikipedia:Wikidata]]) -->. Useddenim (talk) 15:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I've restored the talk page history. It probably wasn't necessary, but it also won't hurt anything, and since you asked I went ahead. I'm not an expert on categories by any means but it seems to me that adding the category to the documentation page should have worked. I'll ask someone who knows better than I do. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:34, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Prince Edward Island automobile ban

On 19 May 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Prince Edward Island automobile ban, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Canadian province of Prince Edward Island banned automobiles for more than a decade starting in 1908? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Prince Edward Island automobile ban. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Prince Edward Island automobile ban), 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.

— Maile (talk) 00:03, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

— Maile (talk) 00:03, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Cora Emmanuel

Ivan, my guy, I'm bout to start swinging. So a user called Kvng requested permission to create this draft before some dickhead who apparently wouldn't know fashion-related notability if it sat on their face decided to erase the comment and reject the draft because they don't think (just that... they don't think) she has enough significant coverage–despite the fact that user Kvng pointed out 6 specific instances that show significant coverage in the article. He said quote :@Ivanvector: I am ready to accept this draft into mainspace based on significant coverage in multiple reliable sources ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]). It looks like this is locked down pretty tightly - I can't even create Draft talk:Cora Emmanuel. Can you loosen things up? ~Kvng (talk) 20:38, 17 May 2019 (UTC) The new "reviewer" thinks she hasn't been signed to enough agencies or some senseless vapidity like that to show notability when there is like 5 paragraphs of career information with citations for verification. I mean, does she have to fly? Cure the common cold? So what I'm requesting here is for you to just move the page yourself as that's what the previous reviewer asked before this troll got involved. It had been sitting there for months prior to this new incident. Thanks. Trillfendi (talk) 18:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't know why but I didn't get Kvng's ping from the draft, but Scope creep clearly didn't actually review this, as it clearly had been accepted before the drive-by decline for bogus reasons. Trillfendi, even if the latest review was clearly incompetent, we have a policy against personal attacks. Please dial it back.

I have reverted the draft to Kvng's review and restored Trillfendi's comment which Scope creep removed for some reason, and I have removed the blacklist entry blocking creation of the pages. Cora Emmanuel itself is create-protected at extended-confirmed level, so any of you should be able to create it (courtesy ping Airplaneman). Kvng, please complete your review and promote the article, I could do it but I would do it wrong. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I did review it and I thought she didn't have coverage per WP:SIGCOV and still don't and I was planning to reject it totally, but thought it might be worth leaving it for a couple of weeks to see if sufficient sourcing could be added. I object to being called dickhead when the process was followed exactly. I would suggest a third uninvolved editor who is the Afc group take a look at it, otherwise it is heading Afd. scope_creep^Talk 20:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

@Scope creep: what is the problem with me finishing my review? I have not been involved in the kerfuffle. You are, of course, welcome to nominate it for deletion after I accept it. ~Kvng (talk) 20:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

None as far as I see. I hadn't see you for days. Crack on. scope_creep^Talk 20:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Running it to AfD after it's accepted is a good approach if you think notability requirements aren't met. I don't like to see drafts languish, and I'm also no expert on notability when it comes to fashion models, but AfD should give you a fairly definitive answer one way or the other. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Checkuser blocks?

I note that you have placed several blocks that are marked as "checkuser" blocks using {{checkuserblock-wide}} and similar templates. It does not appear to me taht you hold the "checkuser" permission. Therefore I am confused. The one-year block of 195.99.33.0/24 is of particular interest to me. Can you help me understand what's going on? UninvitedCompany 17:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

That block was made on April 20, 2019. Ivanvector voluntarily gave up his CU rights on May 3 (see his userpage).--Bbb23 (talk) 17:24, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Sorry for the noise. UninvitedCompany 17:40, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi UninvitedCompany! I responded to your email to the functionaries list, that is unless it got bounced. I can give you more information about that block but not on-wiki. I emailed the checkusers list but that one I don't know if I still have access to, nor if you do. As for the permission, I think you might have checked the local rights log, while checkuser is one that is logged globally. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:42, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. That's all I need for now. UninvitedCompany 17:54, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I'll stop emailing you :) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:54, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

2 problems

Hi, brother,

This category must be deleted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:CS_Oltchim_R%C3%A2mnicu_V%C3%A2lcea_players because it will stay blank since the club now is renamed and we have this category instead: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:SCM_R%C3%A2mnicu_V%C3%A2lcea_(handball)_players.

Also please delete this page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SCM_R%C3%A2mnicu_V%C3%A2lcea_(women%27s_handball)&redirect=no since there were two different clubs until April 2019. It's the page of the club formed in 2013, but now this club is part of the CS Oltchim Râmnicu Vâlcea aka SCM Râmnicu Vâlcea (handball) (it acquired the record and will continue to be the old club under a new name).

Thanks! Tiramisucuzmeura (^Talk/_Edits) 18:19, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Tiramisucuzmeura, thanks for your edits and your message. We have strict rules about speedy deletion, I can't delete the page if you tag it with the wrong kind of deletion. You can see a list of the tags available WP:CSD here. If the reason you want to delete the page doesn't fall under one of these definitions, then you need to start a deletion discussion; see WP:DELETION.

I redirected the first category to the team's new name. We do that in case someone else writes an article about someone who played for the team before it was renamed, to make sure that they use the right category. I see that you already did that for the second category.

When you want to create a link to a page you don't need to paste the full URL, just enclose the page title in two square brackets, like this: [[pineapple]] renders as pineapple. If the page is one that has special handling in the software, like categories do, you have to add a colon (:) to the start of the link, like this: [[:Category:SCM Râmnicu Vâlcea (handball) players]] creates Category:SCM Râmnicu Vâlcea (handball) players.

I hope that helps! Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Updating LTA pages for new characteristic IP range?

After my semi-apology to Sro23, I finally got my report on the apparent home IP of WP:Long-term abuse/Fangusu filed at AIV (and actioned later). But while tagging on a question at ANI it finally clicked that the most recent IP was not on the list of characteristic IPs (172.56.xxx.xxx and 172.58.xxx.xxx). Very close (old) though (new).

That's the prep. The question is, what is the bar to meet to add a new characteristic range? Oh, and physical location needs to be updated to add Sacramento area. That could be done now given usage last several months (CalUniv at Sacramento). Shenme (talk) 00:07, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Shenme! I've been following Fangusu for many years now, longer than I can actually remember, and I wrote most of the LTA page originally. The ranges I listed in the infobox were those that were active at the time. There's not really a "bar", we just add info if we think it will be useful for future investigations. When it comes to IP ranges, "close" is not really a thing, two IPs are either in the same subnet or they're not. The 172.56 and .58 addresses are inside 172.32.0.0/11 (or 172.32.0.0 to 172.63.255.255) which is a very large T-Mobile range, while 172.85.185.67 is outside that range and assigned to a different ISP, one I don't recognize actually but I'm not up to date on all the various small American service providers. It's entirely coincidence that the similar numbers also happen to be physically located near each other.

According to the tool we most often use, that address is within 172.85.128.0/17 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), which is small enough to be useful in terms of investigations. Having a look at the contributions from that range, I'd say that Fangusu has been using 172.85.185.67, and also Special:Contributions/172.85.176.34 and Special:Contributions//172.85.204.30, but that's as far back as I've looked. So yeah, I say list it.

As for location, Sacramento is probably accurate but we don't need to be terribly specific. IP geolocation is pretty rough in some parts of the United States anyway. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:04, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Page watchers

On ANI, you mentioned how many editors were watching a specific article. How can you tell? (I think it can be useful for some articles to know if it's being watched by others, but don't know how to find that info.) Schazjmd (talk) 15:42, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Assuming you're on desktop, in the menu at the left there's a link called "page information", which shows you some technical info about the page you're on including how many editors have the page on their watchlist. I don't know how accurate it is, though, and you can't tell from that who is watching. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:06, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

(ironically a page watcher) There's no reason to suspect the count is inaccurate. However, if the number of watchers falls below 30, only administrators see the exact number. Non-admin users see something like "fewer than 30".--Bbb23 (talk) 22:58, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Ahh, you're right, I forgot about that. I wonder what the reason for that is? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 01:00, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

See WP:W (Number of watchers).--Bbb23 (talk) 02:14, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I suppose part of the idea is to keep potential vandals from being able to tell if a page is unwatched or close to it. Unfortunately, as I've discovered, there are plenty of unwatched pages where vandalism will stick around for long periods. Admins are trusted users, so there's no concern there. Enigma^msg 17:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at User talk:Bbb23#User:Bring back Daz Sampson again

 You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Bbb23#User:Bring back Daz Sampson again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:25, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ivanvector. If you're watching Bbb23's user talk and this link is unnecessary, then my apologies. I'm only posting it as a courtesy since you were one of the administrators who posted in support of this editor being unblocked. I'm not questioning the unblock, only expressing concern that the editor is starting to repeat behavior which played some part in their being blocked in the first place. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:30, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Just notifying you of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Bring back Daz Simpson: NPA and ASPERSIONS as a courtesy since I mentioned you by name in the thread. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:17, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Marchjuly. For some reason I got your ping from ANI but no notifications about your messages here. Hmm. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:57, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what happened with the other notifications. Perhaps there's a bug or something happened on my end. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:19, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Delete case page

Hey Ivan sorry about that I created a second one not realizing you put in the appropriate page – can you terminate my other one- Thank you FOX 52 (talk) 04:06, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I should have followed up earlier, but it looks like Bbb23 took care of it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

"Elephant in the room"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The section on which you've just reverted my close pertains to allegations that Raystorm was somehow involved in the matter of banning Fram. Given Raystorm's denial that matter should be considered closed, and the section should remain archived. Unless you're alleging that Raystorm is lying, which would be a far more serious allegation and would belong somewhere else entirely. The new comment you've added, while relevant, appears unrelated to the subject of that section and should be asked in a new section at the bottom of the page. I'd request you to please re-archive the elephant discussion and continue the other points elsewhere. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 13:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, Amakuru, go have a read of WP:AGF before you write another thing so grossly off the mark. I'm "alleging that Raystorm is lying"? I asked her to clarify an administrative process. I don't have one bit of a clue what you read in my question that was an accusation. Go ahead and revert it if you're so offended by it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Read my comment again. I didn't say you were alleging that. I don't for a minute believe that you were alleging it. I said unless. Hypothetically. Which would be the only reason to possibly keep open a thread which is about the issue of Raystorm's involvement in Fram's blocking. Your comment that you made on be reopened thread, while addressed at Raystorm, was on a separate topic and belongs elsewhere. That's all. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Retirement

Re this, you may want to look in at template:Retired which says, rather undeniably:

"Editors should promptly remove this template from their user pages if they resume editing for any reason. If still editing on rare occasions, use {{semi-retired}} in preference."

With regards to BU Rob13‎, aside from the fact I considered him to have been an appalling administrator, he probably, in all intents and purposes, is a likeable person, but his flagrant disregard to the rules, such as seen here, whilst chastising those of us who did the same, somewhat sticks in the craw and seems a little bit "do as I say, not do as I do". The rules apply to him too, and you, an administrator, should know that. Anyway, I'll leave you and Montanabw to wax lyrical about me some more on his talk page, as I have far more interesting things to be getting on with. Good evening. Cassianto^Talk 16:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Please do get on with something else. It's usually me espousing meaningless pedantry for no reason at all, and being on the other side of it, I admit it's quite tiring. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:01, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Invitation

Not sure if you know who I am. We had interacted with each other here. I would like to invite you to notice this petition launched by WMF Taiwan branch and join/support the petition if you find convenient. Best! --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 17:57, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Mark Bourrie

Please look at what's happening to this page, and read the new entries on the talk page. 2607:FEA8:C360:C3:99F7:DB71:6772:B707 (talk) 18:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• Hmm these edits seem fine to me. Drmies (talk) 18:19, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Two things

So, this was a conversation I was having with an old (in terms of Wikipedia tenure) admin a month back and it was about me modifying sanction closing instructions to cater to all editors instead of just administrators, I was quickly reverted and told that the prerogative of placing such sanctions is only on administrators — in response to which, I cited one very recent close then where a non-admin had placed a CBAN per unanimous consensus and another where another administrator had implicitly agreed to the close, stating it was placed by non-administrator and that was not an issue (along with the fact that I do not think there's a specific restriction on non-administrators to not close sanction disccussions). Do you think that any current policy enforces that only administrators can place such bans (IBAN/TBAN/PBAN)? I'm not too sure about it.(Talk page stalkers welcome to pitch in)

The second is with respect to the SPI case filed by Roberthall7, I've pinged you over there due to new developments and decisions, and MelanieN is yet to respond. --qedk (t 桜 c) 07:22, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

@QEDK: Thanks for your note. We had a ransomware incident at the office earlier this week so I've been pretty busy catching up, and only paying the bare minimum of attention to Wikipedia things. The SPI is a bit complicated, I'll definitely have another look at it but probably not before the weekend. If some other admin acts on it first that's no problem with me.

As to your first question, the policy that enforces administrators closing sanction discussions is the banning policy itself. I kind of have mixed feelings about that: on one hand closing controversial discussions is something we normally call on administrators to do, but we've also been loosening that convention over time because the community has recognized that editors without the bit are generally just as capable of interpreting consensus. If you wanted to change the language in the policy, I think you'd have to start with an RfC with a good argument as to why the change is a good step. In terms of the unconventional closes you referred to (but didn't link, so this is a general comment), we have WP:IAR for those kind of things. If there wasn't anything wrong with the close other than who the closer was, it's a stupid waste of time to contest on only that basis. Some really pedantic editors might interpret that as a personal attack.

Just as a third general note, you should give some thought to turning Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/QEDK into a bluelink. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:25, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Reminds me of the time when entire offices went down in our country from WannaCry, hopefully for you it'll ease off soon. Don't worry about the SPI, just thought I'd let you know, and it is a lot indeed, spent a better part of an hour reading through all of it I believe.

The reason why I was unsure because there was an RfC which was closed with the conclusion that non-administrator RfC closes should not be reverted simply because it was closed by a non-admin, and RfC closes are arguably more relevant than singular sanction discussions. I might consider making an RfC to engrave it into policy but there's not much of a net benefit to it, apart from gauging community consensus on the topic. I do agree WP:IAR is a better rationale here.

As for adminship, I recently did an ORCP poll and it didn't fare quite well (that would be an understatement). The response was mixed (again), leaning towards "not now, run 6 months later" (again), so I don't think it'll be a bluelink anytime soon. Let's see how it goes. --qedk (t 桜 c) 15:59, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

June 2019

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. Please see WP:Votestacking. You only pinged editors that agreed with your point of view and invited an additional editor that was not part of the talk page becuase he agreed with your POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sookie7 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

@Sookie7: a few things:

1. Please leave new talk page messages at the bottom of the page. If you haven't seen all of the notices plastered everywhere that new messages go at the bottom, you are aware now.
2. Please sign your talk page posts by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comment.
3. Your notice is mistaken. I invited every editor who had participated in the discussion on the talk page, including another that agreed with your argument, and nobody else. It just so happens that nearly everybody disagrees with you. Get your facts straight before you threaten anyone else with user warnings.

Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:59, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Maple leaf

Check it out. It's red. – bradv🍁 01:09, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

SPI

Have pinged you over at SPI: Here goes, see User:Hiwatl. Suggest Checkuser and page protection. -Roberthall7 (talk) 16:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ziggy 2milli

A tag has been placed on Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ziggy 2milli requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is 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 become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:27, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• You can just delete them, Liz. We don't have any use for empty SPI categories. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:28, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Maybe I should elaborate more. This category is left over from when the SPI was renamed because we found an older account, and we (almost) always file cases under the name of the oldest account connected to date. When we do that, all the former members of the category are re-tagged under the name of the new master, so the old category becomes empty. Normally whatever clerk is doing the rename also deletes (or CSD-flags) the category, but sometimes we forget. If you do come across a category tagged with {{sockpuppet category}} that has no members, it is safe to delete, either WP:C1 or WP:G6. If the clerks actually have a use for it we'll just recreate it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

That would be typical but in this case not the reason it was moved. All the accounts found were confirmed to a different (and newer) user, so we moved the case.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:26, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Ah, good to know! Always exceptions to the rules around here. Anyway, I still think it's generally safe to delete empty SPI categories. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:29, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Just curious

Who is San Fran? Banedon (talk) 07:33, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

The city of San Francisco, I presume. El_C 07:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

If San Fran = San Francisco, how is a city capable of banning Fram? WP:CANSANFRANBANFRAM Banedon (talk) 07:37, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

It's where the WMF is located. El_C 07:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I see. Thanks. Banedon (talk) 07:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

All about trains

Hi there Ivanvector. Would you have a moment to look at User:PATHrailsystem. This is another sock of User:The Train Master. At Perkasie station, you can see the same edit by User:AmtrakAcela2000 and User:NorfolkSouthern523, on an article created by The Train Master. Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 00:22, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, Magnolia677. Looks like they've been dealt with already. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:34, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Re Infobox India consensus

Could not find any for Vaishali Kaimur, Bhojpur, Banka, Nadia ... still Uanfala keeps re-inserting the fork [7], despite that TfD is ongoing. 78.55.29.138 (talk) 21:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Possible violation of WP:AGF

This edit at TfD may violate WP:AGF. Take more care. 77.11.201.49 (talk) 15:14, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Possible troll

Hello. I think that the Antisemitic troll that you blocked back in March 2019 is back on 99.203.24.0/23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log). Their attack here really stands out to me as a red flag (the troll is the only person who has accused me of being a "stalker" this year, and the IP has made the same attack). They seem to have switched to that range about 6 weeks ago. I'll let you decided whether or not to block. If they repeat that behavior, though, I'll definitely report them. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 20:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz and Berean Hunter: Notifying other CUs who may be interested. Concerning the troll, these are the previously-blocked ranges involved: 66.87.9.0/24, 66.87.30.0/23, and 66.87.84.0/23. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 21:03, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

HS2000

Hi. Again after one year the same user from different ip addresses from Serbia wants to change this page and write a fictional state. If you can somehow protect this page from edit war.That I can only write reliable users not everyone. Thank you https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HS2000

Hi there, thanks for your note. We don't have a way to protect a page as you requested, we can only protect it from all IP edits which would also prevent you from editing. It looks like someone else has already done that. You should discuss the changes you want to make on the article's talk page. Thanks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:08, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Request for Undeletion

Hello, Ivanvector. I am here to request for undeletion of File:Meisterstadt 5-2019.jpg that was deleted per WP:G7 (requested by me). I also apologize for not giving the correct criterion at that time. Finally, I spotted the right license for it, as I saw it in {{FoP-USonly}} and Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Indonesia. Therefore, I want to fix and improve it. Thank you. Samuelsp15 (talk) 12:13, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@Samuelsp15: I have restored the file. Please add your licensing information as soon as possible. If the file remains without license information in 7 days, it will be deleted again. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: Thank you very much! I also inform you that I've fixed and improved it. You may check the file now. Thank you. Samuelsp15 (talk) 15:23, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Your edit comment

I've hidden the edit comment from this edit of yours. Please don't leave comments like that, per WP:CIVIL. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'm from the US; am *I* allowed to say my country is fucked and dragging everyone else down with it? I'm not sure this was a legit use of revdel, although I'm also not sure it's worth expending energy contesting it. I certainly don't see how WP:CIVIL applies, though, since it wasn't directed at another editor. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Wondering the same. I had guessed the context of the summary from the removed text and knowing Ivan, it was pretty easy to conclude he wouldn't attack an editor, which left me to ponder the very questionable exercise of revdel powers. Like Floq too, I realized there was no point pursuing it further and hence, (had) let it be. --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:08, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

• I appreciate your vigilance, RoySmith. You cited criterion RD2 in your revision deletion summary, which from the revision deletion policy is for "grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material" and further explains "but not ... 'ordinary' incivility" (emphasis in original). In fact the policy specifies this "not ordinary incivility" several places:
  • Under "Misuse": RevisionDelete does not exist to remove "ordinary" offensive comments and incivility
  • Under "Criteria for redaction": RevisionDelete should not be used without prior clear consensus for "ordinary" incivility (emphasis in original)
  • Under "Log redaction": intended solely for grossly improper content, and is not permitted for ordinary matters

Almost as though the authors of the policy intended that the tool only be used for the most seriously offensive conduct, hmm? Further, also under "Log redaction": Due to its potential, use of the RevisionDelete tool ... to hide unfavorable actions, posts and/or criticisms, in a manner not covered by these criteria or without the required consensus or Arbcom agreement, will usually be treated as abuse of the tool. (emphasis in original) Your use of the tool to suppress a political comment you dislike is pretty clearly an abuse of the tool. I'm not about to make a case over it, I accept your criticism with respect to creating a civil collaborative environment for everyone, but please familiarize yourself with the policies governing the use of advanced permissions, and be more careful in the future. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:53, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

My objection is not to the political aspect (which I happen to agree with), but to your use of profanity. Surely there was a way to describe your edit using less offensive language? The passages you cite above are tacitly referring to the text of pages, where there are lower-level tools one can use to remove the offensive material (i.e. simply editing the content). With edit comments, revdel is the only tool that exists. What encyclopedic or project value did your comment have? -- RoySmith (talk) 14:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

What world are we living in, where profanity is the measure of a personal attack? I'm forgetting where I draw the quote from but it was an ArbCom member who stated that it is entirely possible to make personal attacks, and far worse than simply a profane comment. So, drawing a parallel makes no sense (note that I cannot see the edit summary), if the only reason you decided to remove it was because of the profanity. If everything must have value, think of the edit summary as an expression of opinion, surely that holds value. Either way, it's not my case to make, but I still disagree. --qedk (t 桜 c) 14:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• Continued at WT:REVDEL#Need clarification on RD2 -- RoySmith (talk) 15:04, 17 August 2019 (UTC)