User talk:Ivanvector/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

TFL notification

Hi, Ivanvector. I'm just posting to let you know that List of National Parks of Canada – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for May 18. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 01:29, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

SPI

Can I ask on what basis you have closed this SPI, without taking into account what I see as rather compelling and obvious evidence. I really do not think you've put much thought into this, and would like to urge you to reconsider based on WP:DUCK. Mar4d (talk) 16:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I've closed it based on my conclusion that the two users are not sockpuppets. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:23, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I would like to know how you reached that conclusion, taking into account the behavioural evidence. How do you explain the lone edits on the war articles, or even the most minute details like incorrect use of "despite" which is visible to the blind eye IMO. It's rather perplexing. Mar4d (talk) 16:26, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

The technical result is compelling evidence that the two users are not related, and I don't find the behavioural evidence as convincing as SheriffIsInTown's allies in the long POV war. It's true that there is a lot of sockpuppetry in the topic area covered by WP:ARBIPA, and I accept Sandstein's observation that MapSGV might be somebody's sock, but I'm not convinced in any way that that account is being operated by Capitals00; again, the technical result suggests that is not the case. The "details" you mention are remarkably consistent idiosyncrasies of Indian English editors, as Kautilya3 observed, and as others have observed in the history of this case. The fact that Capitals00 used a sock once many years in the past is not evidence that they've learned how to sock "better" now - CheckUsers are much more capable of detecting deliberate obfuscation than everyone seems to think - and repeating that assertion every time there's a new editor in the topic area is a borderline personal attack. There's very consistent evidence that Capitals00 has gone many years not repeating that indiscretion, and it is going to take much better evidence than idiosyncratic English to convince SPI clerks otherwise. This wasn't the most frivolous filing in the several years that I've been aware of this SPI, but it's up there. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure there are many idiosyncrasies that are consistent in India, however there are some that are peculiar to a certain editor, and I don't see how something as unique as "despite" or the extremely limited vocabulary ("frivolous", "incompetence", amongst them other words overused by both) qualify in the former. I have been editing in the India topic area for years, and have come across Indian editors (with good to terrible English) and have never found any of these "consistent" idiosyncrasies that I found amongst these two accounts. Even the use of commas, sentence pauses, and basic grammar structure is the same which is too good to be true. You would expect there to be subtle differences if there were two different editors. I'm not very convinced, and a deeper analysis would show there is certainly more than meets the eye. It also does not explain why Capitals00 after months restored MapSGV's exact same edits on obscure articles like these [1] [2] [3] [4], which Capitals00 never edited before, when these two had no interaction, and when MapSGV's own edit count was less than 20. Mar4d (talk) 17:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

You can be right, generally, that a behavioural analysis can reveal that two accounts edit in similar styles, with similar language quirks, in similar topic areas, back up each other's sides of content disputes, and many other telltale behaviours which are often signs that two accounts are being operated by the same person, and in isolation we often do block after such a connection is established. We do check these things, and thoroughly; there's not a backlog of 100 or so cases because we're rushing through them and ignoring evidence. However, when I have a checkuser telling me that these two accounts are editing at the same time from distant locations in (I'm assuming) a very large country, a conjectural analysis of the two accounts' language similarities and common (but not exactly unique) points of view in a hotly contested topic area isn't enough to convince me that the technical data is wrong. Sometimes we might review the technical data in comparison with the behavioural analysis and conclude that meatpuppetry is possible, but who's going to say that all of the editors supporting one side of a dispute are meatpuppets but all the editors supporting the other side are not? It's not going to be me. If you feel that Capitals00 and MapSGV are disruptive influences within the topic area then WP:ANI and/or WP:AE are available to you to review their conduct, but I remain convinced they are not each other's sockpuppets. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Frivolous SPI aside, Mar4d (who was himself a sock) has already begged enough admins[5][6] to get me blocked because he dislikes that India defeated Pakistan in Siachen conflict. Even his own diffs are contradicting what he is saying just like his own references and arguments (that he copied from a banned sock-puppeting editor "Freeatlastchitchat") always contradicted him on Talk:Siachen conflict[7][8] and he was just repeating himself due to his POV and lack of knowledge about the subject. Every editor has opposed Mar4d's problematic behavior on talk page.[9][10][11][12] It may offend Mar4d but clearly every editor is talking about his problematic behavior and he should think of reforming instead of becoming more problematic. I haven't come across any editors with this much incompetence that they can't even understand simple English including an easy fact about India's victory in Siachen conflict except Mar4d and Freeatlastchitchat who also claim that it is the only war in the world that ended in a "ceasefire" without any results. That is very suspicious. Mar4d should find some other hobby. I was in India in February but I got back to my country Jordan in the starting days of March. Yunshui would agree, maybe that's why he stated "locations are disparate". — MapSGV (talk) 12:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

case request: Questionable BLP reverts by blocked editors

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, I would like to inform you that your withdrawn case request has been archived.
Best regards, Kostas20142 (talk) 17:25, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Bazaan

Thank you for looking at that SPI. The reason behind including inactive accounts is that they can become active anytime if left unblocked so would you be kind enough to look at the other accounts as well because Bazaan has a habit of activating sleepers years later and we would still have to deal with them behaviorally as there will not be any guarantee that there will be another account to run CU against. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:10, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi sheriffIsInTown, I realize I owe you a reply to this, but I got distracted by some other stuff. I did look through the two case archives but I don't really see evidence that the sockmaster often reactivates old accounts, it looks to me a lot more like they create sleepers and activate them once, sometimes a long time afterwards, but once they abandon one they don't go back. It's not possible to Checkuser them when they're as old as those inactive accounts were, and there's confusion now between the two cases, so I think it's best to wait for them to edit. I'll go back and take another look at the archive. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:36, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply and a second look. I started looking at their history in detail and finding quite a few big similarities. I hope you do not mind to look at the evidence once I file it. Since, I am investing time on collecting evidence, I would like to post the evidence as a new SPI instead of your talk page. I hope that is fine with you. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@SheriffIsInTown: if you're just compiling evidence on inactive accounts I think it would be better if you emailed me. Otherwise another clerk might see your report first and be upset that I already said you shouldn't report inactive accounts. If something needs to be updated in the case I'll take care of it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:54, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

In your inbox. Thanks again for taking a gander one more time, the text might look huge and clumsy in the email so if it is easier for you then I can create new SPI and mention in the summary line something like "already discussed with Ivanvector". Appreciate your hard work for keeping Wikipedia safe. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:56, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• Hi, Ivanvector, did you get a chance to ponder over the email? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:05, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected

Hi Ivanvector, briefly semi-protected this page for reasons evident in the page history. Hope that's ok, and obviously do with the protection as you will on return. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:33, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

see edits on Bangladesh. the new sock is active for revert old edits. Thanks in advance!---2A00:A200:0:826:6596:3AA3:211:3266 (talk) 13:16, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

All cleaned up. Thanks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Johndwayson! another one--disgusting!!---2A0A:A540:A83C:0:D175:18D8:D8E0:234C (talk) 19:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Interaction Timeline V1.1

Hello Ivanvector, I’m following up with you because you previously showed an interest in the Interaction Timeline. The Anti-Harassment Tools team has completed V1.1 and the tool is ready for use. The Interaction Timeline shows a chronologic history for two users on pages where they have both made edits.

The purpose of the tool is to better understand the sequence of edits between two users in order to make a decision about the best way to resolve a user conduct dispute. Here are some test cases that show the results and also some known limitations of the tool. We would like to hear your experience using the tool in real cases. You can leave public feedback on talk page or contact us by email if the case needs discretion or you would prefer to comment privately. Otherwise, I'm always interested in hearing your other thoughts and ideas about the work of the Community health initiative projects. Best regards, SPoore (WMF), Trust & Safety, Community health initiative (talk) 15:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

2607:FCC8:9381:EB00:/64

Hi Ivanvector,

I've been dealing with a disruptive IP (range), who appears to not like the rapper Drake and alters/removes content at articles related to his music, including data about his performance on various Billboard charts. This goes back at least a few weeks now, and I don't know whether a range block is appropriate in this case. (contributions in the IP range) MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Decided to provide some sample diffs in case you are unable to see their contributions in link above: [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]. To a minor extent, they've also removed content in other music articles unrelated to Drake: [27][28][29]. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:55, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: blocked. Looks like petty vandalism to me. By my count the user has had a total of 9 warnings since 1 May across this range (which is only as far back as I checked, they've been active a few weeks longer), has never responded to a message and has never explained any of their edits. They don't stand out to me as being related to any particular SPI but I did not look into it very thoroughly. If they start up again you should report to WP:AIV for a faster response, and if you report the range in the form Special:Contributions/2607:FCC8:9381:EB00:0:0:0:0/64 it will be easier for an admin to review. Thanks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Gallup Pakistan Poll

The poll you removed on the page. I was dubious of it too, but I contacted gallup to confirm if it was authentic. Regardless of it being paywalled, those with WSJ membership can see the figures. Also, Gallup doesn’t always publish polls on their website. If you look on their official twitter feed they have cited it as authentic. They did not publish the Geo/Jang poll on their website either.

File:Gallup confirmation authenticity.jpg

Confirmation authenticity

Masterpha (talk) 19:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Additionally I will be readding the poll. This was discussed on the talk page and agreed that it was authentic. Masterpha (talk) 19:23, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Masterpha: I'll take your word for it, I can't see the WSJ article. I wasn't able to find a non-paywalled source for the poll although I didn't have time to look very hard. It would be good to add it if you know of one. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Sardeeph SPI

Hi Ivanvector, you had previously suspended the SPI case of Sardeeph, pending the ARE case. Unfortunately, MBlaze Lightning has now decided to retire. I could probably dig up some additional evidence but don't have the time to do so right now. Perhaps you can close it without prejudice, and I can open a new case if and when I get a chance? Thanks. Kautilya3 (talk) 14:11, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: I'm considering my response to the SPI, but I don't quite have time to put my thoughts down just at the moment. I have a pressing IRL beard net problem to deal with. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

48 hr block still enabled?

Hi Ivanvector - can you take a look at this 48 hour block? [30] It appears to be active still despite it being enacted for 48 hours.Hmlarson (talk) 18:25, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

• Hmlarson, the original block by GiantSnowman is for one month but the template says 48 hours which I suspect was an error.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:34, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

• Berean Hunter shouldn't the admin notify the editor of his typo? I'm not seeing any communication in edit summaries from GS in the Interaction Timeline - just mass reversion of edits. Seems like rather abusive behavior to me on the part of the blocker. Hmlarson (talk) 18:41, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

• Most of the communication took place on Ronalditos' talk page and he refused to communicate until he was blocked except telling GS to stop undoing his work. See this. Ronalditos could have possibly avoided this by communicating on his talk page.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:03, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Hmlarson: - it was a typo, and I didn't correct it because I was unaware (that's kinda the point of typos!) Out of interest, why didn't you ask me about this before running off to another admin, or indeed notify me about this discussion? If you think I'm being "abusive" then feel free to report the block at ANI. If not, please leave me alone. (For any interested third parties, Hmlarson appears to be reviewing my old edits/blocks etc. as a result of us having a disagreement at this AFD. I'd be touched at their obsession with me if it wasn't so unsettling). GiantSnowman 19:12, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Nice try, GS. I was looking at who created the many articles you are attempting to delete without following policy (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniela Carrandi WP:MULTIAFD; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brenda Viramontes) and discovered the editor was blocked (by you).Hmlarson (talk) 19:21, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Socialist state

I've written six new section on the talk page merger nomination to explain the difference between the term "Socialist state"/"Communist state" and the other terms for socialist construction (socialist republic, socialist country, socialist system el cetra).

Please read, I would appreciate it very much. I don't mean to sound like a jurk, arrogant or demeaning. The term and concept "Socialist state" was conceived by Marxist–Leninists. The Ba'athist movement sought to establish an "Arab state with a socialist system" (something different) and Libya sought to establish an "Islamic socialist state". The term "socialist state" was not used in the writings of Bernstein, Kautsky and other reformist / gradualists... they used "socialism" and talked about the "establishment of socialism" (and not about the establishment of a socialist state).. I can send you texts and pictures of the wriings of Luxembourg, Bernstein, Kautsky, internal Labour party documents... Whatever you like, but socialist state is a Marxist–Leninist term which Marxist–Leninist use. Other socialist movements (outside of the communist movement) don't use the term "socialist state".

Please read my comments. If you don't change you're mind, OK. But that to me doesn't make sense, because you're mixing "socialist state" with the term "socialism", "socialist society" el cetra. --TIAYN (talk) 13:06, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

Totally meant to close that but it totally slipped my mind. Thanks for taking care of it. -DJSasso (talk) 16:13, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Request for deletion

I just need to request you that please delete page User talk:Ram The Editor as reason G5 because it was created by a blocked or banned user named Ram The Editor. Thank you. 106.223.67.108 (talk) 09:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

As several administrators have told you already, we don't delete user talk pages. Stop asking. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 10:10, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive IP

Hi Ivanvector

There is a WP:SPA IP 95.107.235.175 [31] who keeps targeting articles Lef Nosi and Misto Treska removing referenced material. Request page protection for both articles for now. Best.Resnjari (talk) 20:51, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Resnjari, my apologies, I didn't see your note until this morning (in Atlantic Canadian time). It seems that the issue has been resolved through Marianna251's mediation and protection is not currently necessary. I will watchlist the pages but I don't think my action is needed at this time. If there is disruption in the future, you'll get a faster response by making a request at WP:RFPP. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:30, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Its ok. I thought i would go down this route. On Albanian wiki its been a nightmare of sorts with IPs and those pages. Thanks for advice. By the way as i am here, i had another issue which i thought was a little out of my depth and to do with an IP. I'll just provide a link to the talkpage of the article [32]. There isn't much to read but i do need the advice of an administrator. I do believe the IP is that person. What would you say is the best course of action (if its an area on wiki that has come up over the years for you)? Unilateral action, a forum or would you recommend an admin who may have expertise in the area as to how to best handle it. Best.Resnjari (talk) 14:39, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

@Resnjari: I'll reply here rather than there since the IP has been away for a couple weeks and I don't want to inadvertently ignite what may be a sensitive issue. We normally do respect requests to remove information about low-profile individuals (see WP:BLPPRIVACY, WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE and WP:LOWPROFILE for more details). Even if it's reliably sourced (and I think it is in this case) and not apparently harmful or contentious, if it also doesn't add significant information to a person's biography then there's probably no harm in just removing it. If you did have a concern that the IP editor is not actually the subject, you can direct the editor to contact WP:OTRS. They can handle private identity confirmation, and can also handle correcting or removing sensitive private information if it's the subject's wish. For what it's worth I have seen this a few times and have asked the person to go through OTRS and it's never come back for me that the request was not genuine, though sometimes the request is untenable. I think you've handled this fine, but if they do come back around with more complaints about the article it would probably be a good idea to go the OTRS route. Hope this helps. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:09, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Much appreciated and many thanks. I read the policies and made adjustments to the article. On comments in the talkpage, as they are a bit awkward as they delve into a personal event can they be removed (by me or an admin)? If so can that entail all comments in the talkpage as they relate to addressing the IP on those matters? If i am not allowed who would i go to or what forum for such a request (would it be WP:OTRS or somewhere else) ?Resnjari (talk) 20:02, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

@Resnjari: I don't think there's any more to be done here, the information doesn't appear to be sensitive to me. Who the subject was married to is pretty freely available information. If you come across something more inappropriate, like a user publishes their own (or someone else's) email address or phone number or full postal address (I've seen this many times) then you can ask for it to be suppressed by using the email form at WP:OVERSIGHT. Users with special permissions can remove sensitive personal information and hide the edits from being viewed by anyone, even administrators. Page histories with suppressed edits look like this. Another process that's related that you might be interested in is WP:EMERGENCY for dealing with very urgent matters like threats of self-harm or violence, but obviously that doesn't apply to this situation. The key to both processes is not to draw too much attention to the matter on-wiki if you can help it, we're all volunteers here and not expected to be experts in dealing with confidential information or deescalating a violent situation. Just privately let someone know at the appropriate email and they will take care of it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:01, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Ivanvector for the advice and information. Work has kept me from replying earlier. When it comes to biographies most articles that i have written on have been on people who are deceased long ago, so this sort of situation has been a learning curb for me. Best regards.Resnjari (talk) 17:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

For the great advice...

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For the detailed and great advice you provided and for your tireless contributions to the Wikipedia Project in making it a better place. Much appreciated.Resnjari (talk) 17:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much

The RfC discussion to eliminate portals was closed May 12, with the statement "There exists a strong consensus against deleting or even deprecating portals at this time." This was made possible because you and others came to the rescue. Thank you for speaking up.

By the way, the current issue of the Signpost features an article with interviews about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

I'd also like to let you know that the Portals WikiProject is working hard to make sure your support of portals was not in vain. Toward that end, we have been working diligently to innovate portals, while building, updating, upgrading, and maintaining them. The project has grown to 80 members so far, and has become a beehive of activity.

Our two main goals at this time are to automate portals (in terms of refreshing, rotating, and selecting content), and to develop a one-page model in order to make obsolete and eliminate most of the 150,000 subpages from the portal namespace by migrating their functions to the portal base pages, using technologies such as selective transclusion. Please feel free to join in on any of the many threads of development at the WikiProject's talk page, or just stop by to see how we are doing. If you have any questions about portals or portal development, that is the best place to ask them.

If you would like to keep abreast of developments on portals, keep in mind that the project's members receive updates on their talk pages. The updates are also posted here, for your convenience.

Again, we can't thank you enough for your support of portals, and we hope to make you proud of your decision. Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   10:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

P.S.: if you reply to this message, please {{ping}} me. Thank you. -TT

IP block

Hi there. Just thought I'd raise this with you, seeing as you blocked this IP for sock-puppetry. I think this IP is the same person. The are editing in a similar manner and to similar pages. Cheers. DaHuzyBru (talk) 09:07, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Edit warring#Need a clarification of a 1RR

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Edit warring#Need a clarification of a 1RR. Pretty sure you didn't say what is being proposed. NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: I'm pretty sure I didn't say anything - my comment from an old discussion is being imported. I'll take a look. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:12, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Printsterprintingdocuments

Did you mean to softerblock? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I did that on purpose, yeah. An account that makes one obviously promotional edit in completely the wrong place might be someone who just really doesn't know what they're doing, and if they read our guides and understand what this project is about then maybe they'll contribute constructively, or at least understand that we're not an advertising platform. Slim chance, I know. But regardless, they can't use that username. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:22, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, my friend. I like your gentle way. It reminds me of me before the weight of being an admin crushed my spirit. :) Kidding. I'll certainly be influenced by this and softer my blocks. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Rockin' Rebel paradox

You removed a reliable source confirming his death on the grounds that no reliable source confirms his death. And you said anyone could re-add it with one, but made it impossible for anyone but admins one minute later. This is a bad call on a few levels.

First, Greg Oliver and Dave Meltzer are not mere fans with opinions and Internet access. They've graduated university and have long professional careers, where they've learned the importance of credibility, good sources, ethics and responsibilities as much as any reporter with similar longevity. Meltzer, particularly, is something like the Knowlton Nash of the wrestling world. If he's comfortable stating their deaths as fact, they're virtually certainly dead.

Second, you're perhaps waiting for something extravagant, like a police press conference or a segment on The National. If so, we may be waiting forever. As you can probably tell from his article and level of news coverage, Rebel was not The Rock, Hulk Hogan or any other transcendent mainstream name. Nor is he close. Even within wrestling fandom, he's oft-forgotten and overlooked. It's entirely likely we'll just have people citing Meltzer citing friends, relatives and co-workers for years to come.

Third, while we're holding Rebel's death to an unusually high standard (and while the couple continues to not debunk the reports on social media), we leave dozens of other reportedly dead people on the Deaths in 2018 list, based on the say-so of friends, relatives or co-workers. Not word from cops, doctors, politicians, judges clergy or whichever other official you might be waiting on here. Why can a couple of art galleries declare Malcolm Morley dead? Or Brechin City FC can call it for John Ritchie (on its self-published website, no less)? Bruce Krison's story names no source at all, but we're not assuming that means he's a living person. Why the double standard for someone else we have no reason to believe isn't dead?

Anyway, I'm not knocking you for it, just saying I think you've made a mistake and might consider fixing it. If not, I guess there's no harm in keeping him alive on Wikipedia, just probably a bit confusing to readers who heard he died and Googled their way here to find he didn't. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:49, June 2, 2018 (UTC)

The Walt Disney Company

Thanks for semi-protecting The Walt Disney Company. Pepper Gaming (talk) 21:58, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Olive branch

I am sorry if I hurt your feelings during ARCA discussion, it was not my intention. No matter the outcome of the proceedings, I look forward to working with you to build better encyclopedia! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Update for Rockin' Rebel's death

Hi Ivanvector. As you may know rockin' Rebel and his wife are dead and it says that you updated information a day ago but I only see his date of birth and not the day of his death. Could you at some point update the page? Thanks MaxTraxx 82 (talk) 13:09, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi MaxTraxx 82, please see the article's talk page. As of yesterday there was an issue that the sources reporting his death were basing their report on speculation, while nothing had been officially confirmed, and we normally do not update articles on people who may have died until there is an official confirmation. Some editors are already discussing the matter on the talk page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:30, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Topic ban violation

Hi Ivanvector. You blocked A. Katechis Mpourtoulis for topic ban violation regarding the Balkans. They are again editing the same pages [33]. Since it is a topic ban violation, not disruptive editing or socking, I do not know what excatly should be done in this case. Can you have a look at it? Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:46, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

@Ktrimi991: thanks for the report. I have blocked the user again and again I've tried to explain that their topic ban includes the topics they've continued to edit. I'll leave it to you to determine if their edits should be reverted: technically you are permitted to revert per WP:BANREVERT but you can use your discretion. If this happens again it will probably be faster to report this to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I do not have expertise in the articles Katechis edited, and can not give a honest evaluation of the quality of his edits. Some of them have already been reverted by other editors, and I am leaving the rest as they are. I had a look at the AE page and saw that in every report there is a part that says "Sanction or remedy to be enforced". What should I write in that part if I report an editor about behaviour/edits concerning the Balkans? Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

You can write something like "WP:ARBMAC topic ban [34]". Be sure to include the permalink. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Ivanvector. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

How can the Interaction Timeline be useful in reporting to noticeboards?

Hi Ivanvector,

The Anti-Harassment Tools team built the Interaction Timeline to make it easier to understand how two people interact and converse across multiple pages on a wiki. The tool shows a chronological list of edits made by two users, only on pages where they have both made edits within the provided time range. Our goals are to assist users to make well informed decisions in incidents of user misconduct and to keep on-wiki discussions civil and focused on evidence.

We're looking to add a feature to the Interaction Timeline that makes it easy to post statistics and information to an on-wiki discussion about user misconduct. We're discussing possible wikitext output on the project talk page, and we invite you to participate! Thank you, For the Anti-Harassment Tools team, SPoore (WMF), Trust & Safety, Community health initiative (talk) 22:24, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

My old template

I am fine with its deletion now. I put on a db-author. Bearian (talk) 23:59, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

No consensus pagemove

Hi Ivanvector

When time permits, can you revert a pagemove of a article talkpage. Its the Gjon Kastrioti article. User:Xhfgsepfiuh unilaterally moved the page to "Ivan Kastriot" and that was reverted, however the talkpage still has the name Ivan Kastriot [35]. There was no consensus for the change of either the main page or talkpage by @Xhfgsepfiuh, yet alone a proper pagemove process in the talkpage [36]. Best.Resnjari (talk) 01:51, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd suggest you to restrain yourself from hasty moves until the matter is properly resolved.[37] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xhfgsepfiuh (talk • contribs) 11:43, 24 June 2018 (UTC) Xhfgsepfiuh (talk) 11:50, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

@Xhfgsepfiuh:, your pagemoves were undone. There was no consensus.Resnjari (talk) 06:34, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FreeatlastChitchat

Hey, if possible, would you do me a favor and e-mail me the "differences in technical data" you referred to? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:42, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Emailed. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:21, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Spurious SPIs

I have been observing a rampage of most spurious SPIs recently created in retaliation by someone but being filed by someone else. Where do you think this issue can be addressed? Lorstaking (talk) 05:30, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I will like to make an observation, and agree but only to the extent that I have seen. This diff (and the format/style of the SPI preceding it) in particular evokes curiosity. Who is "we"? Mar4d (talk) 06:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Your above edit is not only unhelpful but it's also a gross violation of your topic ban. Don't reply to this thread and stay out of this matter entirely and don't forget that this same kind of disruption got you topic banned. Lorstaking (talk) 07:17, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Pot, meet kettle. The place we tried to address this was arbitration enforcement, and that's been a circus. To be blunt, I don't care. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:52, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Opinion polling Pakistani election 2018

There is a deliberate attempt to show the page in favour of a particular party. See history most of them deserve 3R ban. Jawadmdr (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: - please review Jawadmdr's disruptive activity on the Opinion Polling page. He is consistently reverting the lead to his partisan version while 3 separate editors, including myself, have reverted his edits in the past 24 hrs. - Wiki.0hlic ^(talk) 09:12, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

That was weird,

and felt like it was automated... Govvy (talk) 18:48, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

@Govvy: there's some weird stuff going on today. :/ Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:49, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Request for assistance

[38] Enigma^msg 02:29, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Disregard. Sorted. Enigma^msg 06:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Please re consider this controversial survey. Jawadmdr (talk) 14:02, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

@Jawadmdr: there is no controversy. You are creating the controversy. Prove to me that there is controversy and I will happily support the removal of the poll. маsтегрнатаLк 14:22, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

NadirAli

Hi Ivanvector. Another recent finding shows that NadirAli edited with IP as recently as May this year.[39] There have been calls for community ban, though I still felt to inquire what you have thought about this SPI as NadirAli may have emailed you and others in last 1 week. ML ^talk 17:37, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Block

I think you missed that the abuse was very recent. Boxman88 has edited as recently 29 June and removed and re-added controversial material[40] that could have created trouble for NadirAli if he had used his main account. NadirAli socked with one IP as recently as 9 May.[41] Arbcom remedies do not allow reduction of standard duration for the offence. NadirAli still deserves an indefinite block, though in this case of NadirAli, in my opinion, the block needs to be permanent given he has been evading his block, topic ban, siteban for more than a decade while being subject to these numerous restrictions. --RaviC (talk) 15:16, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Re-protection

Could you please re-add semi-protection to America's Got Talent (season 13). The protection you added recently expired and disruptive editing is already occurring again. TheDoctorWho (talk) 00:28, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

@TheDoctorWho:  Done for another 2 weeks. If vandalism picks up again after that I'll consider longer protection. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:41, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Adding The Truth

Consider reviewing the unblock request at User talk:Adding The Truth#July 2018 2. Lorstaking (talk) 08:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I would echo that, Ivanvector.

I am also wondering if it would be useful to ask the implicated users to respond to allegations at the SPI before evaluating their behavioural evidence. There was a time when editors used to get routinely notified of SPI filings concerning them. That is not happening now. I don't think the editors particularly need to know that they are getting CU'ed. But for behavioural evidence, it would be useful to know their side of the story before we make decisions. My two cents. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Lorstaking and Kautilya3. First off, admins do not review appeals of their own blocks, the point of an appeal is to have a neutral administrator review the situation. There are currently 25 requests in the queue, someone will be along shortly. As for asking the implicated users to respond, I don't think I understand your intent. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/My Lord had been open for 11 days before I looked at it, and by that time Adding The Truth had already responded and My Lord was already indeffed, I don't know what you think I should have waited for. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:36, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

You are right. It escaped my notice that ATT had already responded at his SPI. Thanks. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:04, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

As per my above message, your comment regarding the unblock request is needed because blocking policy urges against unblocking users without attempting to contact the blocking administrator unless the block was an obvious error which it wasn't. I believe ATT's unblock request as well as comments made by other editors are convincing. Lorstaking (talk) 17:16, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Bot

I'm not sure if you are the right person to contact about this but the MediaWiki message delivery bot is posting triple messages to everyone about the latest TAFI article. Take a look at my talk page for an example. Regards.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:19, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi BabbaQ, I see what you mean, but no, I'm not the one to contact about it. I would suggest posting a message at WP:VPT, although by now there's a good chance that whoever maintains the message delivery system is already aware of the issue. Cheers. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:28, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bernie Sanders

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bernie Sanders. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

RGW?

What is your opinion on the contents of this section. Does it come under WP:RGW? - Wiki.0hlic ^(talk) 12:45, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

@Wiki.0hlic: replied on the article's talk page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:08, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

citadel

Please check your reverts to my edits. Citadel enrolls Cadets along with undergraduate students, graduate students and both undergraduate and graduate online distance degree-seeking students. Everything I have put in honor code, military classic of the South, senior military colleges, etc is fact and I (along with other editors) also included references which have been repeatedly ignored. Again please check your facts before reverting my edits. Thanks, 2600:1:F429:9C82:2979:70B3:CFFA:796C (talk) 15:08, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• Sock blocked, edits rolled back. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:40, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Censorship!

As in "Let's pop into Timma's for an icecap". You hear it all the time.<tongue planted firmly in cheek>--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:05, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

sleeper sock alert

pls see Bangladesh page! Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bazaan/Archive is back! thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.78.69.242 (talk) 20:50, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the same editor back again. Thanks for your report, they're now blocked. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:01, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your action but they are back again! I think the page need now Pending changes protection!?-89.0.253.78 (talk) 06:17, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Restoration of Draft:Decision stream

Problem is that the entire article appears to be pretty much copied verbatim from the original paper and its abstracts. The Researchgate website has a (C) symbol on it, so I'm guessing it's copyrighted, unless research papers have a different status? (I doubt they're released under a compatible license, though...). Black Kite (talk) 14:05, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I didn't look at the draft very closely. You indicated G13 in the log and my understanding is that G13 is an automatic restoration on request, so I did. If it's a copyvio, and sounds like it is, then please delete it again. I'm on a public network this morning so not using my admin account. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 14:18, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't realise it had other problems until I'd already deleted it G13 in the first place. Given the other issues it's had, I'll delete it G12 this time. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 15:38, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Pika_Gaming153

Pika_Gaming153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hi Ivanvector. This editor has made some unconstructive edits on Miraculous: Tales of Ladybug & Cat Noir and their talk page. Can you have a look at it? Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:49, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Blocked, obviously not here to contribute. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:55, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Ivanvector. Although they showed some sense of humor, their block benefits the project. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:57, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

When they write "it's just a prank, bro" and then move on to playing around with people's nationalities, nobody's laughing. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:59, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I completely agree. Thanks a lot! Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:01, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Radcliffe line

Ivanvector there is a problem on Radcliffe Line article. Its been stable for 9 months until these recent edits.[42][43] Being the original contributor of much of that content I reverted back to the status-quo, only to be reverted by some DBigXray, whi has no prior activity on that article or its associated talk, and what is following is an edit war, stonewalling (inspired, I suspect, from NadirAli's block, since he and I were the majority in the October discussion with Kautilya3) and veiled threats.[44] I think you should take a look at the article history and the talkpage to see the status-quo is maintained while we can all resolve this peacefully at talk. Dilpa kaur (talk) 12:16, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@Dilpa kaur: I'll keep an eye on it. My best advice for you is to discuss the issues with the content you want to add or remove, and not dwell on which version is currently visible. It's not my area of expertise so I can't be of much help with respect to content, but if you can't come to an agreement you could try dispute resolution. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:05, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

ARCA archived

Your clarification request has been archived at WT:Arbitration/Requests#Clarification request: NadirAli unblock conditions (August 2018). For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 17:22, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2018).

Administrator changes

Sro23

KaisaL • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

• After a discussion at Meta, a new user group called "interface administrators" (formerly "technical administrator") has been created. Come the end of August, interface admins will be the only users able to edit site-wide JavaScript and CSS pages like MediaWiki:Common.js and MediaWiki:Common.css, or edit other user's personal JavaScript and CSS. The intention is to improve security and privacy by reducing the number of accounts which could be used to compromise the site or another user's account through malicious code. The new user group can be assigned and revoked by bureaucrats. Discussion is ongoing to establish details for implementing the group on the English Wikipedia.
• Following a request for comment, the WP:SISTER style guideline now states that in the mainspace, interwiki links to Wikinews should only be made as per the external links guideline. This generally means that within the body of an article, you should not link to Wikinews about a particular event that is only a part of the larger topic. Wikinews links in "external links" sections can be used where helpful, but not automatically if an equivalent article from a reliable news outlet could be linked in the same manner.

Technical news

• The WMF Anti-Harassment Tools team is seeking input on the second set of wireframes for the Special:Block redesign that will introduce partial blocks. The new functionality will allow you to block a user from editing a specific set of pages, pages in a category, a namespace, and for specific actions such as moving pages and uploading files.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Request for unblocking for account [45]

Hi, I am suffering with a drain out legitimacy.Please check this [46] go through the whole situation.Its a humble request help in recovering my account. (117.227.108.152 (talk) 03:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC)).

DBigXray

Can this user be blocked for this rude/uncivil response to my warning about their proxy editing? Dilpa kaur (talk) 11:49, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

70.49.64.0/22

You broke the block log. And I need it for reference please. Can you fix please and ping me? -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:13, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

@DeltaQuad: wow, I really did break the block log there, didn't I? Fixed now. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Bangladesh

It seems that sock master is back ! !!

Question

On the page protection page, you wrote, “Note that the recent IPv6 edits are all on one /64 range.” I’m just curious what that means. I appreciate knowing since I’m new to Wikipedia editing! Thanks. Champa Chotso (talk) 17:24, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Champa Chotso, thanks for your question. The detailed answer is a bit technical, but when I say "/64" I'm referring to the IP netmask. In IPv4 addressing, which is 32-bit, normally each user on a network is assigned a specific IP address, for example 145.78.55.101, and while one address is assigned to one user at a given time, the addresses are dynamic, which means that when that user logs off or disconnects their internet, their ISP can reassign that IP address to some other user. But even though a user might have a different IP address each time they connect, ISPs only have certain blocks of IP addresses (subnets) available to assign. So we can usually determine that any user with an IP address between 145.78.0.0 and 145.78.255.255 are probably using the same ISP, and if their edits are similar we can determine that it's probably the same user making all of the edits. This represents a subnet mask of the first 16 bits of the IP address, so we can write this shorthand as 145.78.0.0/16. Since administrators can block IP ranges, this also gives us a sense of how "big" the range is, or how many innocent users might be affected by a block: a /16 netmask represents 65,536 different IP addresses which could all be different users.

With IPv6 addressing, which is 128-bit, because there are so many more IP addresses available it's more common for one user to be assigned a small range of IP addresses all the time. For example, all of the edits that come from any address in between 2600:fc0:34a7:834b:0:0:0:0 to 2600:fc0:34a7:834b:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff are likely all made by the same user, even though there are approximately 1.84×10¹⁹ separate addresses within the range. Since an IPv6 address contains 128 bits, when I say "/64" I'm referring to all of the addresses where the first 64 bits are the same.

In the case of Lodro Rinzler, although it looks like there are a few separate but similar IP addresses editing, it's more likely that all of the contributions from 2604:2000:1481:81D9:0:0:0:0/64 ("/64" meaning the range of addresses within that subnet, which have the same first 64 bits) are all being made by the same person. My note was for administrators that might be considering blocking the user, that they should consider blocking the IP range instead of blocking a specific address. In fact, Oshwah has already done that.

The short answer is you probably don't need to worry about this technical jargon ;) But if you're interested, any of the articles I linked to will have more info on the topic. Happy editing! Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:10, 7 August 2018 (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) 04:28, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Knson same as Knson3?

Please my note in the Knson3 case. Hope this was an OK step. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:18, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi EdJohnston, no, your change is welcome and you didn't mess anything up. Looks to be a much larger case and we'd have missed it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:59, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Revdeletes of User:Redfamilyuser3

I noticed that User:Redfamilyuser3 also posted the same blurb that you had revdeleted from Talk:Swaminarayan to the page of Shikshapatri and was wondering if this should also be revdeleted as well? In addition to this it appears that another user User:Swamigurukul has copied large amounts of text from the same source into the Shikshapatri article and maybe this should also be revdeleted? To me it seems like it has been copied and pasted from this link: http://www.popflock.com/learn?s=Shikshapatri. Thanks in advanced for looking into this! --Imminent77 (talk) 19:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Imminent77, thanks for pointing this out. I did see that the user had added the same thing to that article and I was meaning to remove it, but I got distracted by something else. The edits that were revdeleted from the talk page were removed because the user also said some very rude things about some other editors, which they didn't repeat in the article. It's hard to say whether the user copied their edit from that website or the other way around, since popflock.com is a site that copies from Wikipedia, so I won't revdelete it. I did remove it from the article, though, just because reproducing religious texts is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Thanks for your note! Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Glad to hear that you have taken care of it. Thanks! --Imminent77 (talk) 19:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:AN

Hi Ivanvector, thank you very much for carefully separating my struck post from the others at WP:AN. I am happy to reenter the discussion now, since things seem to have cooled down. Thought I should let you know in advance. Thanks for all your efforts. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:40, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Knson

Knson3 is continuing to using his talk page inappropiately - could you revoke TPA, and also for Knson2 and Knson5? Thanks. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Aside comment

(Responding here as this is really not for AE, and is off topic). RE this - it would be an interesting experiment to define Wiki conflict based on editor participation (assuming we were to color each editor by nationality - a no-no on wiki per policy) as opposed to actual relatedness of an article to a conflict. I've noticed this in ARBPIA too (which is not nearly as messy as ARBIPA (at least lately) - but is still a mess) - that sometimes one has "proxy battles" on issues not really related to actual conflict (e.g. in ARBPIA - the silliness over cultural appropriation (or lack thereof) of Hummus or Israeli Salad would perhaps be one). I suspect Adam's Bridge leads to a "proxy battle" due to the Hindu/Abrahamic name (though in this case, the British are "at fault" in setting the Abrahamic name as the COMMONNAME in English...) + the feature being relatively well known. Would definitely be an interesting research topic for an article (e.g. identifying "proxy battle" articles that are not actually conflict related).Icewhiz (talk) 15:42, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

MegaCyanide666

Thanks for withdrawing the AE. Would you mind reopening the SPI on MegaCyanide666? There was also some recent discussion on User_talk:Boing!_said_Zebedee#KahnJohn27. Capitals00 (talk) 15:49, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

@Capitals00: apologies again, I was clearly wrong in my request. Reviewing the discussion on Boing!'s page, I agree with them and Bbb23 that checkuser is unlikely to reveal anything of use given that the KahnJohn27 case has been idle well beyond the CU data retention threshold. As for past behaviour, sometimes people do get the message that their disruption is unwanted and learn to do better, that's why we have the standard offer to allow users a chance to demonstrate reform. Once the community accepts an offer, I'm not interested in what they might have done in the past unless they continue to do the things which got them blocked in the first place. That doesn't appear to be the case. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I do think that if unblock request had been made by acknowledging the fact he is KahnJohn27, then it would have probably gone to WP:AN and even if unblock request was convincing then still topic ban would be 100% likely. I request you to modify or update the closure of the SPI at least. Though it would be also all good to probably let DraculaTheDragon know that the behavior of KahnJohn27 will be counted whenever we will discuss the conduct of DraculaTheDragon. Capitals00 (talk) 16:26, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

So, you're fully intending to harass them about this thing that three admins have told you not to harass them about? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:31, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

First tell if you agree that he is KahnJohn27? Capitals00 (talk) 16:48, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:02, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Bbb23 and Boing have said that new SPI can be filed with relation to KahnJohn27.

I think I hadn't mentioned but KahnJohn27 was editing Boing's talk page in 2016[47] from completely same location as DraculaTheDragon is editing on 2018.[48] KahnJohn27's IP was often reverted by Boing as "SiddharthSunny"(sock of KahnJohn27).[49] Also why the message was being posted on talk page of Boing but not any other admin? In 2018's message [50] Draculathedragon also noted that "I've shifted my internet connection", that's why ISP is not same but everything else is same as his IP from 2016.

If you agree, since I see no reason why you should not, I want to also note that just now an account who never even socked for 3 years is getting unblocked, but not without topic ban and revert restriction.[51] KahnJohn27 is not to be treated as a special case and as noted below, the deceptive lines like "I forgot password" should not be taken seriously when the person claims they forgot every accounts' password even the sock's, which is not possible. Capitals00 (talk) 17:22, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

@Bbb23 and Boing! said Zebedee: did you suggest to Capitals00 that they should file a new SPI against KahnJohn27? If you did not, I'm about to block them. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:30, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Where did I said they suggested to me? You said "three admins have told you", which I suppose you misread because I haven't even participated in that discussion but only read it and linked it here. I thought you are referring to the discussion at User_talk:Boing!_said_Zebedee#KahnJohn27 as the whole. No they didn't told me anything, but to D4iana that "I'm not stopping you from filing a new SPI report and requesting CU if you wish" and Bbb23 said "You can file an SPI if you like, but a CU request will likely be declined". This is about making a connection of KahnJohn27 with Megacynide666/Draculathedragon. Capitals00 (talk) 17:36, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Everything I said to Capitals00 on this issue is on Boing!'s Talk page. However, although I haven't seen it yet, I think a filing would probably be summarily closed. It's a waste of time for everyone.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:40, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: No, I did not suggest opening a new SPI, I simply said "I'm not stopping you from filing a new SPI report and requesting CU if you wish" in response to what I saw as belligerent arguing. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:45, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

From the archive and the discussion on Boing!'s page, it seems Capitals00 and D4iNa4 have been failing to make the case for ongoing sockpuppetry by KahnJohn27 since around the end of 2016, and they've just decided that DraculatheDragon is a sock and there's nothing any admin can say to convince them otherwise; they're just going to keep up the harassment anyway, Capitals00 even said so right on this page. I don't know if I have the authority but I think a one-way interaction ban is in order here. @Bbb23 and Boing! said Zebedee:, thoughts? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:53, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm really not sure of the bureaucracy involved in interaction bans, but I would support. Or just a block for harassment. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:02, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Have Capitals00 and D4iNa4 been directly harassing DraculatheDragon, or is it simply that the two users are harassing people like us about DraculatheDragon? I would support anything that prevents them from pushing the envelope on anything related to alleged socks, but I don't think we'd ever get it.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:03, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Fair question, I suppose. I'm not fussed at all about them filing repeat investigations as far as clerks' time is concerned, we can just close them. The issue is that I feel that Capitals00 has outright admitted ("the behavior of KahnJohn27 will be counted whenever we will discuss the conduct of DraculaTheDragon") that they're going to keep bothering DraculatheDragon about this and that, for no reason other than their own assumption that multiple admins have told them is wrong. I don't think we should just let that go. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:13, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

That is what you were asked to do. It reads that you should "let DraculaTheDragon know that the behavior..", but that is your choice whether you accept that request or not. Accesscrawl (talk) 18:22, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

No, I'm not about to harass them on your behalf. Maybe you shouldn't comment in this thread any more. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:26, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I only asked some questions for making sure if Ivanvector has missed anything since he initially closed the SPI by considering it as a topic ban violation.

Let me say this: I am done here now. Thank you. Capitals00 (talk) 18:12, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

One-way are imposed by community consensus. But frankly, above messages as well as mine are nothing more than queries about your actions. If you feel that you have answered each of them then you don't have to worry any longer. Accesscrawl (talk) 17:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

• I was pinged on the AE but I will respond here. My SPI mentioned Act345 who is also from same location as DTD. It was not about KahnJohn. If people are allowed to claim that they "can't remember" password,[52] and that's how they find ways to evade scrutiny, then why they should request unblock from their main account? This issue is serious and well capable of setting a bad precedent and should be discussed in a broader forum. Accesscrawl (talk) 17:00, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

A top icon for you

Hey Ivanvector! I just want to inform you that I created a top icon relating to the position of an SPI clerk. It is this: Template:SPI clerk topicon. funplussmart (talk) 15:28, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

@Funplussmart: hey, that's pretty neat. I had one already but it was some elaborate coding of a generic template; yours is better. I added it here. Thanks! Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:24, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Cite act

You're right mentioning the change of the template being quite rash in your edit summary here, I shouldn't have done it the way I have. The function articletype and accessdate are functional again with article-type and accessdate being the preferred input fields. Sorry for the inconvenience! Cheers. Hecseur (talk) 14:39, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

@Hecseur: not a problem! I wasn't aware that those fields were being deprecated, or I would have started using them when I became aware. Do you know if this (preferring access-date in place of accessdate) is planned for all citation templates? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

It wasn't planned at all, the reason I'm sorry is because these field changes were a personal preference, not a planned move by anyone except for my own. Honestly the main code for the template here is just a mess of IF statements that anyone can edit, hopefully someone who actually knows what he's doing makes it more than that, because I have no idea how these things actually work. Cheers. Hecseur (talk) 14:47, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

@Hecseur: I can't quite work out what that template is supposed to do (too much boilerplate argument handling in that horrid template syntax), but if I guess that it's essentially a hacked up minimal version of {{cite web}} with some special formatting of some params to meet a subject-specific MoS? Three-ish custom/unique params? If I'm vaguely close then you might want to rework it using Module:Template wrapper (an example use is Template:Cite Grove). It lets you easily write citation templates that inherit most of their functionality from, say, {{cite web}}, {{cite book}}, or {{cite encyclopedia}} (all the CS1-based templates), while customizing certain parameters or adding new ones. It would eliminate having to deal with the common parameters (|url=, |access-date=, etc.) and aliases and deprecations and… And if you wanted CS2 style for the output you could just hardcode |mode=cs2 (I must admit to not really understanding the difference, or even why people care so much). I'm by no means an expert on this stuff, but I found it a vastly better option than dealing with citations from scratch, so I highly recommend it.
@Ivanvector: I believe the preferred format for all relevant parameters for the CS1-based templates is the one with the hyphen (so |access-date= and |author-link= rather than |accessdate= and |authorlink=). But that's just the CS1-based templates. --Xover (talk) 16:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

@Xover: I don't think there's any template that fits whats needed for cite act. Right now the citation links the url with both the number of the act and the date it was enacted, and I don't think there's any citation template that uses 2 parameters like that. Right now the template works by checking if a field exists in the template, and if it does, use it, otherwise, either give an error message, have the field not appear, or use some default that has been set. The main problem right now is that in any field you can type whatever you want without it giving an error. Although you said you're no expert, you definitely have more knowledge on this topic than I do, is there any module that lets you write a new citation template with more options to how the citation works? Because if not then there's probably no other way except dealing with it from scratch (though probably most of the code could be imported from other modules, but I really don't know how the modules work).
I was also not aware |access-date= was the preferred format in CS1 templates, mainly because |accessdate= is vastly more used, but if that's so I'll flip the priorities again in this temporary mess of a template.
Also we may want to move this discussion either to your, or to my talk page so we don't disturb Ivan. Hecseur (talk) 17:20, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to use this page, it's all very interesting. It's well over my head though. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:25, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Gender

Regardless of the terrible but all too common PC gone wrong of "a male administrator responding so aggressively to a female editor's observation of misogyny is especially horrendous. ", I have never indicated my gender on enwiki, and would like people to keep their speculation on it (never mind, like you did here, making claims as if you are certain of it) out of discussions of my actions. That doesn't invalidate the remainder of your comments of course (although I am utterly amazed that people are apparently allowed to accuse others of misogyny and so on without the need to substantiate it, but I suppose that fits in the same PC gone wrong atmosphere I too often enounter on enwiki nowadays). Fram (talk) 15:22, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

SPI help

Would you take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bettemarkets for me? Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Markuann Smith is sort of awaiting its conclusion. I do not deal with things in that domain often and I know you do. I would have pinged someone who has already posted there but I was not sure who to ping and did not want to ping them all. Rather, I decided it was a good opportunity to bother my old friend Ivanvector . Haven't seen you around rfd lately (though I have not been around there as much myself either); hope all is well. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 05:22, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

@Godsy: happy to; I moved both of the discussions along, I hope helpfully. I'm around RfD from time to time, it just seems to be suitably adminned these days and I've gotten busy with other things. Cheers! Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:14, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the revert!

Thanks for reverting my bad revert of your edit. Yes, that was accidental; my webpage scrolled automatically as I was clicking. Thanks and sorry again. Aoi (青い) (talk) 15:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

In relation to this same thread, I would ask if you can strike/modify that part of the comment where you said Nauriya and Faizanali.007 are unrelated? Those accounts were confessed by him to be his own.[53] Lorstaking (talk) 17:06, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't quite agree that that's the case, there seems to be confusion whether Nauriya was intending to disclose that connection, or intending to disclose that their account was renamed from "Furshan007", and elsewhere they seemed to be denying the connection to Faizanali.007. It's also been brought up in a few places that Faizan is just a common Pakistani name and the similarities are likely coincidental. But I will strike that part of my comment. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:26, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of Pablo Morgado

Hi. I want to urge you to look at the talk page of Pablo Morgado Blanco. Three other users have added their opinion on the matter about speedy deletion. RRD (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Royroydeb. I'm away from home for a few days and not able to push the right buttons on my phone. As far as the previous discussion, I'm fine with it being deleted. You can ask another admin or post at WP:AN and someone will take care of it. Thanks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:47, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Nauriya

I have closed the ANI thread as a clear consensus to indefinitely block this user. I noticed you were more amenable to giving them a "last chance" and simply remove autopatrolled flags and ban them from uploads, in lieu of a block; however other editors said "enough's enough" and supported a full site-ban. So I think a block is a good balance between the extremes of views. I have pointed out that they are blocked, not banned, and I am fine for them to appeal the block through the usual processes. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:22, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Why don't you do anything

It's clear as hell to anyone not new to these bunch of Indian users like DBigXray, Lorstaking and Accesscrawl, 1990'sguy etc that they’re not what they seem to be. This is not the first time they've done meatpuppetry and you seem to know well that they aren't showing up out of coincidence.

You seem to have a much long experience, so you know they're trying to ban their enemies especially us Pakistani editors. So just block them next time. I also suggest you stop being meek in front of them, it will only encourage them. These people are only after to ban us Pakistani editors by hook or crook.

They'll yap about bad faith but won't care whether what they say constitutes bad faith itself. For example RaviC's harassment of you when you're relationship with Simonm223 was already made clear or Lorstaking claiming you're biased against him. Here's a suggestion: end their circus. Glitcher1 (talk) 17:12, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

@Glitcher1:: your concern is noted, but sockpuppetry and harassment are not helpful. I encourage you to stop this. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:14, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

"somehow malicious"?

Where did "somehow malicous" come from? I'm not going to bring it up there, but this comment sounds awfully like you're harbouring a grudge over the NixonNow stuff, because nothing in my comments was accusatory. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:10, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

@Curly Turkey: look, we got off on the wrong foot here. I took your comment that you were "shocked" that I posted the article to GAN as an attack on my competence and motivation, and so far none of your subsequent comments (especially coming here to imply I have an alliance with a WP:3X-banned sockpuppeteer) have really allayed my concern that you're just here spoiling for a fight. I'm not interested, I'm not your enemy, and that's going to be my last comment about it. If you'd like to work together on the article, I'm here for it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:03, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I raised concerns with bringing this sort of article to GA. It's been stressful trying to "work together" on an article with someone who assumes I'm "spoiling for a fight". This isn't the first time you've attacked my good faith, and this sort of comment doesn't "allay my concern" that you're going to continue down the same route. So much for building bridges. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:00, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

ANI close

I hear the admonition in the close and will keep trying to clean up my act. I do get it that folks are sick of getting those complaints and there being a hook to hang them on. Jytdog (talk) 00:58, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I've asked you to re-visit the close on the ANI page. I'm not seeing the clear consensus you cite, and note that the oppose and support votes are 50/50. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:04, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I'll bite: Most of the opposers either did not know the history, failed to review the 2.5 years of evidence, knee-jerk opposed simply because they don't like one-way opposes, were inveterate critics of Jytdog, or were simply nonsensical !voters like Govindaharihari (who has a history of disruption and nonsense). Softlavender (talk) 14:09, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Softlavender, you don't get to discredit opposers simply because they opposed for a different reason than others, knee-jerk or not. This is an awful close and yet another case of admins supervoting with a "it's not a head count but rather the arguments" argument as if stating that trumps all reason. This is a trend that needs to be nipped soon. Nihlus 00:42, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not discrediting anyone; I'm stating a reasoning process that follows logic, facts, the circumstances and evidence involved, and Wikipedia polices and guidelines. Softlavender (talk) 04:03, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

You're actually doing the opposite. As stated before, just because you say you are doing something doesn't mean you are. You have not stated any policy or guidelines, no logic nor facts. Nihlus 05:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments there again Ivanvector. Appreciate the follow up. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:51, 11 September 2018 (UTC)