User talk:Ivanvector/Archive 11

Patriota socking
The talk page may also need to be semi-protected and another sock blocked. See this obvious first-time edit. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 03:55, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Blocked and reverted. I don't like to protect talk pages but I'll consider it for this one. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 04:01, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for considering it. I was looking at the SPI log on the master and have a question: Does this ever get bad enough that someone, maybe someone from the Foundation, approaches the master's ISP? Or do we just play whack-a-mole forever? You'd think that as long as I've been around I'd know these things, but I've always worked on the content DR side (which is how I got involved here, seeing it listed by the sock at 3O). Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 04:10, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * We have contacted ISPs for serial vandals in the past (I don't know who "we" is) but it's extremely exceptional. There "was consensus" to contact David Beals' ISP but nobody knows if anyone actually did. Likely it would be handled privately by the Office. I probably should know these things better than most but I haven't been around the functionaries all that long. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 04:41, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Cora Emmanuel
Hi Ivanvector, I finally got around to doing that Cora Emmanuel draft in my sandbox to what I think could be satisfactory to move to the article space as a start-class. I’m certain it’s at least better than what that sock puppet kept making. Let me know, thanks. Trillfendi (talk) 06:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * sorry this took me a few days to get to. I have moved your draft to Draft:Cora Emmanuel and submitted it to the AFC queue on your behalf. It looks good to me but I'm not familiar enough with our standards on this topic to publish it directly to article space. Please feel free to continue working on the draft in its new location, and thanks for your contribution. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:09, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Socks, oh so many socks
Ivanvector, I'm not sure it matters other than I don't want to see the wrong banned editor get blamed. My question relates to the SPI here []. Without seeing the CU data I have real trouble believing Usowwhatureap was actually 72bikers and not another HughD. Consider that we have a long list of HughD socks Enlightenthedim, Heisdum, Stankylegacypac, Morethanoneway, Simonisamentalmidget, Legacypacwerespinkpanties, Ilegacywerepinkpanties, and Ureapwhatusow. These socks all have similar behaviors and seem to be trying to antagonize a group of editors with similar editorial opinions with regards to firearms. 72bikers was previously accused of being a sock that turned out to be a HughD sock []. Now look at today. HughD was clearly active using Morethanoneway and Ureapwhatusow. I have trouble believing that between those two accounts 72bikers decides to establish Usowwhatureap. How would 72bikers even know to use multi word pattern for a user name (More than one way, U so what u reap) before Morethanoneway posted? Alternatively, what are the odds that 72bikers just happened to be watching the NRA article in the few hours during which this mess was occurring? Why would 72bikers add posts that would clearly incriminate themselves and, more to the point, make themselves look like an ass? Why would 72bikers restore a trolling post added by HughD? None of it really makes sense to me. I'm not at all familiar with how the CU system works but is it possible the earlier checks somehow crossed HughD and 72biker information? Is it possible to check to see if Usowwhatureap are technically different Ureapwhatusow? I apologize for asking given your comment here [] but it just logically make sense to me so I wanted to ask if you could double check. Thanks for you time. Springee (talk) 04:18, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm honored that someone finds my cleanup work so offensive they have taken to creating mocking usernames. Legacypac (talk) 04:54, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm honored that you thought to check my edit history to find me here ;) Springee (talk) 05:02, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I have 30,000+ pages on my watchlist including this one. Legacypac (talk) 05:06, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * LP, you need therapy.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:48, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Bbb23, you might want to learn to use the template. EEng 00:41, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * LP does comment here often, don't take that for anything. As for 72bikers I'll email you. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 11:26, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Ivanvector, again, thanks for looking into it. Springee (talk) 16:10, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Charizard200
Basically, the context behind this is I noticed Cyberbot was tripping up a few times on the RfX report over the last 24 hours or so. I spotted this RfA which was "live" and running on a timer, so thought transcluding it would at least correct the bot, and it would be closed per WP:NOTNOW soon enough. I then realised that not everyone likes leaving diplomatic NOTNOW opposes, so I just closed it and told the editor what's what. I think the RfA was started in good faith by somebody who does want to edit here, so I won't hold it against them in future. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  17:59, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Ditto, the "oppose" I left was trying to be as encouraging as I could manage while saying "this is a definite no". I didn't look hard but I didn't find anything really of serious concern, other than inexperience, but there's no doubt leaving it open would be a demoralizing experience for them. Good call. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:04, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yup, this was very clearly a new but serious editor, not a 15 year old "I wanna be an admin so I can block editors NOW!!!" which I would have G6 nuked without hesitation. So a diplomatic touch was required. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  18:50, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks...
...for checking, and taking the appropriate action. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:14, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

73.6.213.186 and 73.55.210.84
Hello. IP 73.6.213.186 which you blocked on 11 October appears to be back as 73.55.210.84 per the Bill Donohue edits and wp:battleground. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 22:36, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd say so, yeah. Blocked. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:49, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

73.55.210.84
. I had no idea! I feel a bit of an idiot now. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 01:18, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * And also thanks for blocking that other jerk. I've been called lots of things; "naziwhore" is a new one, lol. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 02:09, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

45.23.152.163
The anonymous user 45.23.152.163 just made some nonsense edits at YouTube Rewind page.120.188.34.192 (talk) 04:23, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Notice
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 31, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Brad  v 🍁 21:41, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Merge Discussion in Tabiti
There is currently a discussion to merge the article Tabiti into Scythian Religion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tabiti Squatch347 (talk) 14:51, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

2A01:4F8:0:0:0:0:0:0/32
Hi. Why is the IP range 2A01:4F8:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 blocked? I get an alert like "Editing from 2A01:4F8:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 has been blocked (disabled) by Ivanvector for the following reason(s):The IP address that you are currently using has been blocked because it is believed to be an open or anonymizing proxy. To prevent abuse, these proxies may be blocked from editing Wikipedia." What's the history of abuses from this block? Anyway, I could understand blocking registrations and anonymous edits, but the current complete block looks too much to me. Carmelobrianza (talk) 09:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, I apologize for the inconvenience. The tunneling service you're using appears to subscribe to a webhost operating on this IP range, and that webhost has been identified as an open proxy which has been used abusively by multiple users (you are not the target of this block). It has been blocked due to our policy on open proxies. You will have to disable your tunneling service to edit Wikipedia. If you are concerned about security, note that all Wikimedia projects already implement HTTPS for all connections (see this announcement from 2015). If Wikipedia is blocked in your location, you can have a look at the help age at m:WM:OP/H for advice. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi User:Lsmb-release-bot here. I've sent a mail to stewards@ as well, but the mediawiki channel advised me to come overhere instead. I'm using the IP addresses 144.76.216.244/32 and 2a01:4f8:200:8261::200/128 to create releases for the LedgerSMB open source accounting project, including fully automated release announcements. We're a very small team, so we have a tendency to automate *everything*. Upon release, we want to keep some 5 Wikipedia pages up to date which list either a release number and/or a release date for our software. This block prevents me from using the scripts which someone wrote for me to keep Wikipedia up to date. All I need is for the User:Lsmb-release-bot account to have access to a very strict number of pages, from an extremely limited number of IP addresses. Could you please create an exception for my case? Thanks in advance for your reaction! Regards, Erik Huelsmann, LedgerSMB release manager and main developer —Preceding undated comment added 23:20, 22 December 2018 (UTC)


 * It's the holiday season and I generally like double-entry accounting software so I won't do this myself, but: My thought from reading this discussion is that LedgerSMB doesn't appear to meet the WP:GNG (due to a lack of secondary sources) and that article could probably be deleted. That would solve the problem, though in a way that the OP probably wouldn't appreciate. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 23:35, 22 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for your note. User might have a point about our general notability guideline but I'll leave that aside to respond to your inquiry, because I have different problems with the request. Your username appears to go against our policy against "bot" usernames which says that names which give the impression that they are bots are not allowed unless they comply with our bot policy. Yours does not appear to as at a glance your edits are not being flagged as bot edits, but in my opinion it would probably be trivial for your account to be approved (please see the bot policy and the bot approvals group). Alternatively I think it would be permissible to request a change of username to something which complies with the username policy, since the scope of your script is very narrow it's essentially a semi-automated edit. As for your IP addresses, both have been identified as open or anonymizing proxy or VPN connections, and editing from these connections is usually disabled per our policy on open proxies. Is that service an essential component of your script's function or could you disable the service and edit from a clean IP? If you're concerned about security or anonymity see my comments to Carmelobrianza above, or you might want to post at our discussion page for technical requests to see if someone already has a solution for your situation. I can grant an IP block exemption to your bot's account but these are time-limited so you would end up having this problem again, and in any case I would want to see you complying with our bot policy first. Thanks again. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:07, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ivanvector, actually, all activity performed with my account - except for the appeal submitted here *is* performed by a bot (a bot being a program editing pages). That's the only purpose of this account. However, due to aggressive blocking policies, I have to log in to post on your pages. The only account I ever planned to have is this bot account. This bot-alike name would IMO completely comply with the bot policy in that sense. Doesn't it? The fact that my edits aren't flagged as bot edits would find its cause in the fact that the script I've been given, doesn't flag them as such. I can easily change that to comply with your bot policy (the script automatically generates the edits when there's a release, so I'd call it fully automated -- there's really nothing manual I need to do for it to run). As for my IP addresses, I understand your phrasing, however, I'd like to say that my IP addresses fall in the range of addresses which have a high VPN or proxy percentage. My exact addresses haven't been used as either for over the last 4 or 5 years (I've owned them for that long and never run either). The server which is instrumental to generating releases (which needs quite a bit of setup, bandwidth and computing power -- hence I'm not doing it from my laptop), is the one running the script as part of the release process. As such, yes, it's not just inconvenient to use another IP address; it'd mean re-architecting our release process. I'm wondering, as you say that I'm depending on open proxies or VPN services: I'd like to stress that - if it's not clear from the above - I'm using general dedicated hosting server capacity to do integration testing and release builds + announcements (and nothing whatsoever with security or anonymity). Rather, since this is FOSS software, please tell the world! :-) I'll check the discussion page for technical requests - as you suggest - now to see if there's a solution for my situation. Regards, Erik Huelsmann. 22:39, 23 December 2018 (CET) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lsmb-release-bot (talk • contribs)

Your GA nomination of Doug Ford
The article Doug Ford you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Doug Ford for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Woko Sapien -- Woko Sapien (talk) 18:21, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * thanks for taking the time. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:22, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Personal Attacks from Beyond My Ken
Hi Ivan, I understand you closed commenting on my report. I'm wondering if BMK will get a warning to stop harassing me and stop swearing at me. Cheers, Mwright1469 (talk) 20:25, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You wrote here while I was commenting at ANI. All I can say at this time is I am keeping an eye on the situation. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:40, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

SPI
Are you accusing me of making a bad faith SPI report? Because it was not in bad faith at all.  IWI  ( chat ) 01:49, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No, not at all. That was a bad choice of words on my part. What I meant is that the basis for the comparison was an unrelated bad actor, not that you did anything wrong. I think I have a pretty good idea who is behind the impersonating IP but I didn't do the check. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 11:49, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for clearing that up. Regards,  IWI  ( chat ) 12:45, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Request for Advice
Hi Ivanvector, can I ask your advice? I was accused of being a sockmaster by Orientls. I (and maybe I'm assuming too much bad faith here) think he might have done it because I disagreed with him on some AFD discussions. A relatively new SPI reviewer confirmed the relationship despite no CU evidence based on WP:Duck. However, the only Duck evidence is that the accused sock mimicked my argument (and the argument of at least one other editor in the AFD).

I appealed the finding on the investigation and asked the SPI reviewer about it, but I'd like to get any advice you have on the issue. I honestly have no relation to that account and I don't want to get the tag of sockmaster associated with me. I'm also concerned that Orientls is using this as a way to end a discussion with me about edits.

Again, any advice or help you could offer would be really appreciated. Squatch347 (talk) 20:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Heads up. Squatch has peppered different admin Talk pages with posts about the case, including mine.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify a bit. I initially asked the Admin who performed the block to review the case in light of my defense. I then asked Bbb23 because he had posted a comment on that admins talk page with advice on how to review. I asked him because I was under the impression he might be able to help me understand why the account was seen as a sock.


 * Finally, I came to Ivan's page because he had been involved in a sock investigation of the guy who reported me and I've always known Ivan to be a fair reviewer of things.


 * I hope these posts haven't come across poorly or are seen negatively. I apologize if I've been out of line in any way. Squatch347 (talk) 21:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Sock comments being unhatted
Hi Ivan, thanks for checking the disruption of the ban evading ip. You had Hatted the IPS comments, and now it has been again taken out can you remove or hat it. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  01:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I saw some of that, yeah. By letter of the policy anyone is allowed to restore a sock's comments if they take responsibility for them so there's not really anything I can do there. I think you're right about this being a content dispute that shouldn't be at ANI in the first place, but it doesn't seem to be going anywhere. I'll check in again a bit later, I'm having a busy day. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:12, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Target
The charge that the workers of Target are any more biased than the executives is absurd, corporate's account on the Target wiki page is assumed to be non biased in comparison to the workers!? These are documented events and developments by multiple media outlets, how is the content any less valid than what corporate posts as promotional material? NRVstrike (talk) 00:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)NRVstrike
 * Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia, not an advocacy platform. While I might personally support the workers' advocacy you're promoting, you may not do so on this website. Fortunately you seem to have your own already. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:42, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

what bitter dispute?
At the risk of opening up old wounds (and please ignore this if that's all that answering would do), I'm curious about your statement, "A few years ago В²C and I were in a bitter dispute over an article title issue", because I don't have a clear recollection about that. So I'm curious if you remember the particular title we were disputing. Thanks. --В²C ☎ 18:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It was one of the many Kim Davis discussions, specifically one of the move reviews but I don't have the energy to go looking for it just at the moment. It stood out for me I guess because I wasn't in the habit (at least, not before becoming an admin) of getting involved in very acrimonious discussions. As for my comments about the ds notices, see the thread I pinned to the top of this page. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:44, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay. Yeah, those got a little intense. But in the end COMMONNAME/PRIMARYTOPIC won the day, and time has proven rightfully so, I think. I'm sorry you felt any interaction with me was acrimonious. I can assure that was not my intent, as it never is. Thanks for the pointer to the other thread.  I'll check it out. Cheers! --В²C ☎ 19:58, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

question about "staking a claim"
I have a question about the two way interaction ban. You said "staking a claim" in the closing statement. I have been an active member of the Article Rescue Squadron for years now. I do read and try to participate in every article tagged for rescue on the the rescue list. Article_Rescue_Squadron_–_Rescue_list If he goes to one of these deletion discussions and posts before I do, does that mean I can't post there even if we don't mention each other or respond to what the other says?  D r e a m Focus  14:45, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * In my opinion yes it does. You may not interact with each other. If you can find a way to participate on a page where is also participating without interacting directly, say in a different subsection or on different matters, that may be acceptable but tread carefully - editors who "test the edges" of their restrictions often find themselves blocked. Responding to each other's posts is definitely not allowed. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:55, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Ivanvector : At WP:IBAN it states, "Although the interaction-banned users are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions so long as they avoid each other, they are not allowed to interact with each other." I don't understand the advice here stating that if one user first contributes, say to an AfD discussion, then the other user is therefore banned from posting an !vote. This comes across as solely your opinion, rather than based upon how the actual policy is worded. However, I agree with what you're stating about responding to one-another. Pinging to make them aware of my comment here. North America1000 18:21, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your input. I think what it comes down to in such a case is perception: if an ibanned user is just offering input in a conversation where the other ibanned editor has also incidentally commented, that's probably not a violation. If the user comments in every thread where the other has edited, then it's more likely to be considered skirting the edges. And what if the other editor started that conversation? It's a grey area I guess, and grey areas get banned editors into trouble more often than not. I don't think that what NA1K wrote is wrong, but I also don't think it invalidates my advice to tread carefully. Please feel free to ask lots of questions if you're not sure. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:27, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. My concern was that the community had discussed the matter based upon the set of standards at the policy page, but not necessarily as per your interpretation here. However, your response has clarified matters a bit. As a side note, and since I pinged to DF here and just don't want to bait DF into talking about the other user whatsoever, I strongly recommend that Dream Focus not use the term "he" or anything of that sort (e.g. pronouns) here or anywhere else about the other user. It's strange, but the best way of moving forward is just not mentioning the other user at all. For example, as per the above, one could instead say, "if a person involved in an interaction ban with another user goes to one of these deletion discussions and posts before the other user..." Maybe I'm reading into it too much, but I would entirely avoid the use of pronouns if at all possible, even when discussing the interaction ban itself. North America1000 22:01, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

not court of law
I get that WP is not a court of law, but shouldn't the tiny corner of it in which editors judge the behavior of other editors and decide what the consequences should be (if any) be processed more like our courts than like a lynching, especially in terms of having uninvolved/unconnected people make those judgments and related decisions? --В²C ☎ 22:24, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think not really, no. Courts of law operate like they do because the real-world consequences of court decisions can be severe for the individuals involved, so it's very important to follow a regimented ruleset and precedent and whatever else (I'm not a lawyer). Poor decisions can literally destroy people's lives, even end them in some places. Wikipedia is just a website: we have some conduct standards and if you don't follow them, the worst consequence possible is that you're not allowed to edit any more, which is unlikely to have any significant impact on your real life at all. So we can be pretty fast and loose with showing people the door. I do think we could do better at avoiding mob mentality at forums like ANI but I don't really have a solution. A number of cases I've been involved with have ended unjustly poorly for those involved because they made too many of the wrong enemies who knew how to play the game. But that's a thing that happens when you piss enough people off. The only good defence against it is to not be a jerk, and personally I'm okay with "don't be a dick" being an implied social contract here. Don't take any of this as a comment on your situation specifically, I'm just giving you a general reflection on my experiences. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:39, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Fleetsail
I just ran across this likely recent manifestation of HueDee’s “contributions”; is a revdel in order? Qwirkle (talk) 02:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

PS: this Qwirkle (talk) 02:57, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Disney train articles
Hello. I have a discussion on the Administrators' noticeboard here: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents in which I would appreciate your input. In short, the anonymous IP user who made so many poor edits to the Walt Disney World Railroad article that it had to be semi-protected now has a user name, User:NickH2001, which he has used to to resume his problematic editing of the article and also the Disneyland Railroad article. You wrote a related discussion on the Administrators' noticeboard way back in 2016 here: Special:Diff/756188149. At that time, this user was being given warnings by User:Sundayclose (who has been inactive since October 2017), which you thought were too harsh and cited Please do not bite the newcomers here: User talk:Sundayclose/Archive before July 2017. The point is that it's been over two years now, and this person's editing behavior, where he essentially treats articles like blogs (i.e.: WP:NOTHERE), has not changed. Compounding the problem is the fact that these two articles are now featured articles, and too many edits like the ones he makes could lead to their status being downgraded. Any input that you are willing to provide to that discussion will be valuable. Thank you. Jackdude 101 talk cont 15:00, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

On a claim of synthesis
Last month I added the description of "pro-india scholar" for Parshotam Mehra. This was because scholarly reviews described him in these words "the author has not only abdicated his responsibility as a scholar but also made himself vulnerable to the charge that he has indirectly tried to reinforce the official position of India under the garb of academic objectivity." However, Kautilya3 just removed the pro-India description last night and claimed that this is "wild synthesis" from the source. Can you check this claim? You can see the quote, which my description was based on, within the citation to verify if this is synthesis or not. Alive4islam (talk) 10:39, 3 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Ditto. Ivanvector have you noticed that Kautilya3 has given an edit war warning to Alive4Islam for just 1 revert. But Kautilya3 also reverted me on that same article just before that. Now I am not going to get involved in an edit war here. But what Wikipedia policy allows him to revert others on the one hand and then on the other hand warn others just for reverting him once? FreeKashmiri (talk) 11:28, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, folks, I'm up to my limit in India-Pakistan skulduggery this weekend. Please discuss the matter on the article talk page and if you feel that the situation cannot be resolved then please try dispute resolution. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Possible sock
Hi Ivanvector. Baromerio was created yesterday. The first edit was on the talk page of International recognition of Kosovo, supporting the removal of a country from the list of countries that currently recognize Kosovo. In the past, several confirmed sock accounts of made the same thing immediately after their creation (eg, ). Baromerio made this edit that is the same with that of several confirmed sock accounts .Look how all of them focus on a single small detail, 80% of the population being illiterate. Can you have a look since you are familiar with VJ-Yugo? Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Is this worthy of a SPI or it would be better if I move on and do not do anything at all? Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the slow response, . I think you have a case but unfortunately I won't be able to look into it until probably tomorrow morning (in eastern Canada) at the earliest. Checkuser likely won't be useful here unless someone else who's interacted with this case in the first half of 2018 took good notes, so it would be a good idea to file an SPI report regardless. I will take a look if none of the other clerks beat me to it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:34, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * OK. I will open a SPI in the few coming hours. Thanks Ivanvector. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:12, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Other people's Talk pages
Please do not delete content from other people's Talk pages, as you did to mine recently (and to Greyfell). Mine to decide what stays on my Talk page, what is archived and what is deleted. I am not disputing the blocking of 174, only the cleansing of 174's comment. David notMD (talk) 20:39, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note, . The comment left by the IP editor was abusive and I removed it on that basis. While WP:BANREVERT entities you to restore the comment if you feel strongly about it, the guideline also specifies that you take responsibility for its content. Since the comment was a personal attack, in this instance I recommend you do not do so. Courtesy ping . Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 11:32, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Tre Jones
Hello, you deleted the Tre Jones article over a year ago for lack of notability. However, the subject's career has progressed and he is now clearly notable, so can you please move Draft:Tre Jones to its own article? There are already enough sources on that draft page to warrant notability through WP:GNG. I don't have the access to create this page, but administrators do. Wisestork (talk) 12:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, per WP:NATHLETE, American basketball players are not presumed notable unless they have played at least one game in the NBA or have been selected in the first two rounds of the NBA draft. You might have a point about GNG anyway, but I think you should submit your draft to articles for creation for a proper review. I'll happily remove protection once it's reviewed. Thanks. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe the subject meets WP:GNG, which supercedes WP:NBASKETBALL. That said, it seems reasonable that this go through WP:AFC, but is that an open process where editors like myself can weigh in or is it restricted in some way? I caught wind of this discussion because I've had the subject on my "to do list" for months - he's actually quite a high profile college player. The article was deleted 18 months ago essentially because it was WP:TOOSOON - he hadn't even started his college career yet. Rikster2 (talk) 18:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, for your information I have submitted Draft:Tre Jones to AFC. Wisestork (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Pronounce?
Hello sir I am Himal Subedi (हिमाल सुबेदी) from Nepali wikipedia, and I am confused what is correct pronounce this page https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ode_to_Joy_(TV_series) so sir can you help me to promounce this page title so that I can made this article on NE wikipedia. Please help me - हिमाल सुबेदी (talk) 05:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not an expert in this, but as far as I can tell by looking at Wiktionary, the English pronunciation of the title "Ode to Joy" is /oʊd tʊ dʒɔɪ/, although it varies slightly depending on the speaker's accent. You can also try a web search for "ode to joy pronunciation" to find some recordings of English speakers pronouncing it, if that works better for you. Hope that helps. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * हिमाल सुबेदी, in the Devanagari script (common to both Nepali language and Hindi), It will be " ओड टू जॉइ" as the closest match. Also consider making a redirect with the title "ओड टू जॉय ". -- D Big X ray ᗙ  13:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

धन्यवाद सर
Thank you very much sir. The correct speling in nepali is (अोड टु जोए) i am so happy that you reply my massage -हिमाल सुबेदी (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Ivanvector's squirrel
You do know how silly (and ___) it sounds, right?! 😆   On other fronts, hope you're doing well. Lourdes  18:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * What? It's a squirrel! I should call it Ivanvector's tree rat? ;) Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

MPants
Good block, sadly. I've emailed Oversight about the outing that I rev-deleted. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:28, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Sad to see them go, really truthfully, but enough is enough. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep :-( Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:34, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I was going to try and sort something out this evening with MPants and some of my more favourite arbs and oversighters via email, but events overtook themselves. Operative phrase here is "via email", not on wiki. I'm not going to jump and down and say "good block", but you did what you had to and policy backs you up totally. I do think there is a wider issue to be looked at, and I think treating it as "MPants is habitually incivil" is too naive a handling of the situation. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  17:51, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I do hope you get somewhere with your emails. I'm sad to see MPants go, especially like this. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:06, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * What you just deleted was NOT oversighted, please look again, you admins are really going a bit far. -Roxy, the dog . wooF 18:18, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Just leave it alone, Roxy. Not everything has to be a fight. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:20, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with what Ritchie333 said. I've said at my user talk that I'm thinking about raising an ArbCom case after allowing a few days for the dust to settle. I don't do WP email, but please do let me know at the appropriate time if there is anything "behind the scenes" that I should be aware of. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Democrats and Veterans
Thanks for blocking Hahamay2018. Guess what? An IP editor is now making the same changes. Can you do semi-protection please? Bondegezou (talk) 16:56, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅. I blocked the IP range for a year and semi'd the page for a week. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Could you please intervene?
I just came across an IP editor who seems to have a special fondness for vandalizing sales figures and chart positions of musical articles. Several recent warnings have been issued and I think we're at the point now at which a short block might be constructive. SolarFlash (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Still happening. SolarFlash (talk) 00:49, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Am I missing something? Latest delete of AIV Archive 1
Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism/Archive 1... Trying to understand why this keeps getting deleted. Archives 2 through 16 don't show in the archive box because Archive 1 is deleted. -- ferret (talk) 01:47, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's a Twinkle thing. I accidentally created Administrator intervention against vandalism/Archive 1 by misclicking an archiving script, but AIV is not archived, so I deleted it. When I did that Twinkle also "helpfully" deleted that page's "talk page" as it does by default. I've restored it now but I don't know of a way to prevent it happening again. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 10:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. No way we can protect ourselves unfortunately :P -- ferret (talk) 17:38, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Scotland
I think that my edits were correct because the lead should be only about the country at the World Cup. The qualifying phase, and information about the tournament, have nothing to do with the country at the World Cup. That's why I removed the information. And some countries' World Cup articles didn't have that information before I edited.Dolfinz1972 (talk) 15:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Regarding the rollback rights, I wonder if I can get them back soon. I never meant to use it improperly, and I wanted to roll back to the previous version where the unnecessary info was removed. And there are some other countries that don't have and never had it. Any way I can get back the rollback right soon? Dolfinz1972 (talk) 05:54, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well,, I was going to say that if you could demonstrate proper use of edit summaries and avoid edit warring for a while, and demonstrate that you understand the four bullet points at WP:ROLLBACK for the only times that rollback may be used (essentially, only for reverting your own edits, or for obvious vandalism (please read that link for what is and is not considered vandalism), and especially not for reverting edits you disagree with), then I would have been happy to restore your userright in a month or so. But as I see you've already been re-blocked for perpetuating the same edit war, no, I will not return your rollback right. If at some time in the future you can honestly address your edit warring and misuse of rollback, you are free to make a new request at WP:PERM, but I suggest you take some time to edit without it to demonstrate you can edit without revert warring.
 * To be clear: it does not matter if you are right, edit warring is not allowed. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:13, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

protection log
third time it was SALTed. How were the previous protections removed? <b style="color: blue;">Enigma</b><i style="color: #FFA500;">msg</i> 06:17, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I can only guess here, but I'd say the protection is being removed when an admin archives the page through the previous protection, i.e. you can't create-protect a page that is already created. It's above my skill level but I've made a post about the issue here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:44, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Logging question
Are blocks for violation of topic-bans placed under ARBIPA also logged at WP:AELOG, or are only the topic bans logged? For particular instance see this. Abecedare (talk) 16:34, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, Arbcom rules are really mystifying at times. If it's a topic ban that is issued under a discretionary sanction (i.e. the ban is logged) then (IMO) any blocks related to violations of that ban should also be logged. What I usually do, if the ban and the block occur in the same year, is just add an indented bullet below the log of the ban. Keeps it all nice and neat. So it would look like:


 * is topic-banned from pages related to squirrels. [diff of notification], timestamp
 * Example is blocked 2 weeks for violating this ban. [diff of block notice or discussion], timestamp
 * Example is blocked 1 month for violating this ban. [diff of block notice or discussion], timestamp

... and so on. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Done. Thanks. Abecedare (talk) 16:46, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

SPA
Hi Ivanvector, I apologise if it seemed like I was fanning the flames there that certainly wasn't my intention, Given their first edit was to reply to me and then to make a small edit to some article I felt the SPA tag applied here, Had they edited LGBT/transgender articles first then sure the SPA wouldn't be needed but as I said given their first edit was a reply to me I felt it was needed there, Ofcourse I shan't revert but just felt it was warranted, Anyway happy editing!, Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 21:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

SPA
Can you explain how From the template's own documentation: "Please remember that a comment should not be dismissed merely because it comes from a new account; in itself, this is an argument to the person, considered to be rather weak." means that an SPA should not be tagged as an SPA? Your recent edits have shown you to be increasingly aggressive about this issue. Maybe you aren't the right person to be clerking this MfD. Natureium (talk) 21:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's being used in this instance to attack a new account just because it's new (WP:BITE). There's no other reason to have placed the template beside that comment other than to suggest that the editor's statement should be ignored because it's a new account. If it's a discussion where consensus matters (an XfD straw poll, most often) then highlighting accounts that appear to have been created for the purpose of commenting can be important for the closer determining what the community's actual consensus is. That subsection of the discussion is not heading for a formal close, it's just a discussion among editors, and newbies get equal footing even if you disagree with what they say. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem is not that they are new. If they were a new editor editing an article, no problem. They registered specifically to participate in that discussion, where there has already been a mountain of drama and although I haven't been watching closely since the first day, I know there's been at least one sock blocked. This makes their adding to the drama pretty suspicious. The template does not say to ignore the editor. It only identifies them as what they are–someone who joined for the sole purpose of dramamongering. Natureium (talk) 21:14, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There are lots of editors there for the sole purpose of drama-mongering, there was no good reason to pour more fuel on that fire by singling this one out. But if you think that ad hominems are the way to go to deescalate emotions and keep things on topic, well we will have to agree to disagree. I have no intention of fighting over this, there's been enough of that this week. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Licona case
Ivan, would you mind reopening the Licona case so I can add Truthbetold15 to the meat puppetry list? Yet another mostly inactive account (actually, the creator of the article) suddenly resurrected to puff up the article. Praxidicae (talk) 20:48, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I suggest just keeping a tab on them for now. I had a look at their contribs and (as of now) they've made one edit to that article recently, and it's very minor compared with the previous socks completely overhauling the entire page. I declined to check based on that. If they start getting disruptive I'll change my mind pretty damn fast. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:15, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Pronounce?
Hello sir I am Himal Subedi (हिमाल सुबेदी) from Nepali wikipedia, and I am confused what is correct pronounce this page https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiang_Xin ) so sir can you help me to promounce this page title so that I can made this article on NE wikipedia. Please help me-हिमाल सुबेदी (talk) 13:57, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * your response to Himal's last request was much better than mine, would you like to take this on? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Glad to help. जियांग शिन will be the closest title. also create a redirect with title जियांग शीन as the next closest match. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  14:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

This is just to say...
...I ate the plums in the icebox. And I also drank all the scotch. And I took the cookies, but they're not for me, they're for Mrs. . Thanks, and thanks for allowing me a place to talk now that my main outlet is gone. *sniff* Drmies (talk) 03:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Salvidrim's sig
I don't know if it's browser settings or what, but this is what Salvidrim's sig looks like to me (and presumably to Floquenbeam) in a threaded conversation; you can see the signatures of myself and Serial Number for comparison. Note that not only is it twice the size of any other text, the giant black box is literally forcing surrounding text into double-spacing to accommodate it. &#8209; Iridescent 15:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * While I was trying to figure out how to inspect the source code of this page to figure out what Wikipedia's default font size is, I got pinged over to Floq's talk page where this discussion is already happening. Responded there. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:17, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Federal Assault Weapons Ban
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Federal Assault Weapons Ban. Legobot (talk) 04:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, assault weapons should be banned. That's the only comment I have on this issue. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:46, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Lighthouses in Prince Edward Island
Hello, my friend. I'm just wondering if you have any photos of these lighthouses:


 * Brush Point Range Lights
 * Malpeque Harbour Approach Range Lights
 * Miminegash Range Lights
 * Palmer Range Lights
 * Sandy Island Range Lights
 * St. Peter's Island Light
 * Tracadie Range Lights
 * Wrights Range Lights

Links:
 * List of lighthouses in Prince Edward Island
 * List of lighthouses in Prince Edward Island

Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello! I don't think I have photos of any of these, unfortunately. I did upload a photo a while back of Point Prim Light Station, and I have some of the Cape Tryon Light and maybe a handful of others but I'll have to take a look through to see if any are wiki-worthy (i.e. aren't actually photos of my dog). There's the York Point Light that I see isn't even in our list, I'll see about working on that too. I'm planning on doing some photo-touring when the weather is better but this time of year doesn't make for great photos. The roads leading up to some of these are pretty much impassable during the spring runoff too, so might be a little while. I'll keep this list in mind though! Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 01:15, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you kindly for anything you can do. Enjoy safe photo-touring. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Note of appreciation
Hi Ivan--I just wanted to take a moment to let you know that if you ever decide to run for ArbCom, you'll have my vote. I've been increasingly noting and appreciating the constructive (and often calming) influence you have in multiple spaces (ANI in particular) for a long while now--particularly as you have a great talent for cutting to the quick and faithfully rendering community will with regard to a particular issue while also framing it within broader policy and community consensus. Even when I'm not sure I agree with your administrative actions, I still find your reasons well-articulated and a reasonable read on the situation, with substantial thought clearly put into determining the best way to move forward. Please keep up the good work! <b style="color: #19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color: #66c0fd">n</b><b style="color: #99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color: #b2dffe;">w</b> <b style="color: #d4143a">let's rap</b> 19:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

That close was Wikipedia at its best. Thank you. Lagrange613 02:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * what an awful curse to wish Arbitratorship on someone! ;) Seriously, I appreciate the vote of confidence. I thought about this before last year's elections and decided at the time that it's not really for me. I'm pretty annoyed with arbcom right now, and absolutely wouldn't put myself forward if it was just to make a point, but this is in the back of my mind. I don't expect that everyone agrees with everything I do, that's why we have discussions and I do try to make space for criticism. Cheers. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm not in any position to criticize anyone for not wanting to take on even further elevated responsibility here, having dodged RfA thus far myself. Still, like you, I have some concerns about how ArbCom right now (though this is the first occasion I've chosen to voice them, even vaguely), but while I don't know much overlap there is between your concerns and mine (which mostly relate to how hands-off/averse to interceding in some pretty clear disruption the current committee (and the last two compositions for that matters) seem to be--unless the circumstances are "just so"), I still have to think that your involvement would be a boon to the community. Anyway, food for thought for the future! :) <b style="color: #19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color: #66c0fd">n</b><b style="color: #99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color: #b2dffe;">w</b> <b style="color: #d4143a">let's rap</b> 02:34, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Personal attacks
The word you removed was not directed at anyone in particular, and was certainly not meant as a personal attack. IMO, there's a difference between saying "you're an X" and "there are lots of X-es here". While I will not repeat the word, I will say it was a fitting description of the level of sensitivity and outrage in that thread. When people seriously suggest banning an admin for six months because of an obviously sarcastic talk page post, I dare say they need to get their priorities straight. "It's easier to put on slippers than to carpet the whole world". Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 16:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Telling someone their argument is invalid because they are oversensitive is indeed a personal attack, and if you do so again you will be blocked. I don't give a shit if you agree. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Good day to you too. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 21:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I want to apologize for lashing out a few days ago. You were clearly in the right, and I should have accepted the well-deserved criticism and taken a step back. Furthermore, you closed that discussion in a talented and admirable way, giving those who complained a sense of having been heard without taking any drastic action. Take this as a half-apology, half-note of appreciation. Regards, Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 12:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Revdel/oversight request form
Hi Ivan. Thanks for your explanation at ANI. I thought better to continue this here than there. I guess an email web form could be set up for oversight requests that could email oversight-en-wp@wikipedia.org? For revdel requests, I see what you're saying about the lack of a mailing list. The bot-post-to-IRC idea seemed good. Alternatively, is there such a thing as a page that only admin can view? Perhaps a "revdel request page" could be set up, and an on-wiki bot could take info submitted via form and post it to that page? PS: While I'm here, let me say I agree with the previous comment that you should run for ArbCom next time around, and I also agree with your RPA in the thread before that (and a thoughtful and funny close, too–thanks). Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 17:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, that is what the form at WP:OVERSIGHT does, although that is a wrapper on the email a user form, which does reveal your Wikipedia email address to the recipient. The receipient is the oversight mailing list, though, which only oversighters receive and like I said they're bound to strict privacy rules (they have to sign a confidentiality agreement, etc). For revdel, by definition any deleted page is a page only admins can see, but in order to edit such a page you have to undelete it, save a new revision, then delete it again, and there's at least one policy that disallows using deleted pages this way. We could make a "revdel requests" page similar to WP:AIV maybe (a notice page where requests are rapidly removed as they are processed, which does not archive), but I don't think that would be better than just posting at AN. I'm going to follow up on the bot-post-to-IRC thing, we already have one that tracks changes to SPI subpages and posts to #wikipedia-en-spi, and I guess if there was a page like AIV for revdels then something like that could be effective. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to look into this. An AIV-type page for revdel requests sounds like it would be useful to me, especially if it could broadcast on IRC for quick action. If I'm understanding correctly, when a user posts a request, a bot can revdel the request itself, and–thinking out loud here–post to a "Pending Revdel Request" page with a link to the revdel'd diff of the request itself. So a diff number would be visible to everyone on the Pending Revdel Request page, but the request itself would only be visible to admin, so others wouldn't know what page the request pertains to or what the problematic content was. Once the underlying revdel was handled, the admin can update the Pending Revdel Request page (done or not done, etc.), and a bot could archive that (or just delete it). Doing it this way would keep the clutter off of AN, and unlike AN, it could be clerked by a bot reducing human time needed. Essentially, a user would just have to "drop a diff off" to the bot (with some comment/explanation), and then a responding admin would just have to mark it "done", and the bot would take care of the rest. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 18:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Someone mentioned this to and myself on IRC, and I wanted to comment on-wiki about it. There was previously an almost identical proposal for a suppression bot that was closed as “not happening”. I’d have to look up when it happened (it was at least 18 months ago), but I think a big part of the issue there is what would happen when the bot went down. It’d be a less than ideal situation to say the least.On RD, there’s a few problems: first, it’d require admins to regularly monitor it, and eventually you’d have a pretty big back log (we get this even with the OS OTRS on occasion, and that notifies most oversighters automatically.) This wouldn’t be that big of a deal if it weren’t for the issue that many editors, both admins and non-admins, aren’t sure if content that any oversighter would suppress as potential libel even qualifies for revdel. What you’d end up with would be a page that contains a bunch of diffs to libeleous content that sits there for days. Since suppression is intended precisely to prevent sysops from viewing content, this would defeat the point.Honestly, the best solution here is to create a Wikipedia specific email and email an admin or individual oversighter if you think its RD, or the OS list if it is OS. username.wiki@gmail.com is fairly standard, and reveals no private information. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Having thought about it a bit, I have to agree with Tony's points here. Having a bot available to do this I'm pretty sure would require an AIV-like page, which would then require admins to regularly patrol it, as well as admins to watch the relevant IRC channel. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, just that it's adding a new workflow to the process for not a very significant benefit. I think the key learnings in all this are, basically, if you have an issue which requires urgent suppression because it's a threat of violence or concerns a matter of privacy (the sort of thing you shouldn't post about at ANI) then you should email oversight or WP:EMERGENCY and they'll silently take care of it. If it's not one of those things, then just post at AN[I], it's not such a big deal if it gets a bit of visibility before an admin sees it, and I'd guess that every admin that does revdels is watching that page anyway. Nothing is compulsory, anyway: if you're concerned about the email forms revealing your email address to the oversighters, then just leave it, someone else will see it and make a report soon enough. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 01:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ivan and Tony. Yeah, Tony's point about the bot going down is one I hadn't thought of. That would leave a heck of a page. So far from being a "set it and forget it" solution like I thought, it'd just be a new page to constantly monitor. And now I know the reason why we don't do this :-) Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 04:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Greenock stowaways
Ended up pretty local to ye :)   ——  SerialNumber  54129  14:30, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well they went the wrong direction, but yeah :) Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:07, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

White nationalist terrorism
I'm here in an effort to show my good intentions and to make amends. After I thought you and I had both dropped the discussion about WP:INVOLVED, you continued to call me out with accusations of bad faith in your heated discussion with. What can I do to reassure you that I didn't mean to accuse you of any misconduct, I wasn't trying to "get" you or play games, and I wasn't trying to chill discussion? I have little interest in or knowledge of admin governance issues and rules, which is why I posed my WP:INVOLVED comment as a question, not a statement. I'm sorry for provoking you. While I don't appreciate how you've handed this white nationalist terrorism thing, I think you're a good admin and I bear no grudge against you. R2 (bleep) 16:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Honestly I thought we had moved past it as well, but BH felt the need to call me out again and so on it goes. I don't appreciate being accused of things when I'm honestly trying to help, but I get that you didn't intend your question as an accusation, and I apologize for having responded poorly. What's going on now really has nothing to do with you, it's two angry mastodons playing out a disagreement over a policy fundamental to our roles.
 * If you'd like to move on and work on creating an encyclopedia, I'll be right there with you. I try to make it a point not to hold grudges, they're a silly waste of time, a pretty scarce resource around here. There are going to be disagreements on the project, it's just how it goes, but if you start building a mental list of enemies it's a quick path to burnout. In my experience it really is safe to assume that everyone is here to build an encyclopedia. I will follow up on my edit to white nationalism at some point, I think there's a kernel of truth in Ck4829's editing but they went about it in a really wrong way, but I probably won't get to it before the weekend, I'm quite busy IRL. I'll ping you when I start a discussion there. Also, in case you didn't see it, there's some discussion at ANI below your rollback request which I'm sure everyone would appreciate your input on. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Btw I see an alarming trend of a growing number admins using WP:NOTHERE in a kneejerk manner to indef editors who might be capable of rehabilitation. WP:NOTHERE seems like an important tool and usefully sidesteps a lot of bullshit, but nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition, right? This ANI seems like Exhibit A to me, and I appreciate your effort to design a lesser sanction that fits the crime. R2 (bleep) 19:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

CSD R2
Just to follow up your comment in the now-closed discussion at WT:CSD re WP:R2. While the R criteria generally apply to all namespaces, R2 applies only to redirects in the main namespace: "This applies to redirects (apart from shortcuts) from the main namespace to any other namespace except the Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help: and Portal: namespaces." the change being discussed was basically changing "from the main namespace" to "from the main or portal namespaces". Thryduulf (talk) 17:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You can't easily move Portals to Draft (or anywhere else like userspace) because they don't work for technical reasons. So the idea was dropped. Legacypac (talk) 17:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, good thing I don't work in speedy deletion much, I guess. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Dragging me in
Hi why have you dragged me in another discussion which doesn't relate to me. If you want to talk to me on my talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoraFatehi231 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that but I have say this 'One thing, I am hurt that you are making these untrue alleagations against me. I want to clarify, when you said I faked a user's signiture, no its not that I wanted to copy my signiture from they discussion I had and then copy it to the other. The other one is WHO IS MIASAYS.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoraFatehi231 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Dimpletisha SPI
Hi Ivan, thanks for handling the Dimpletisha SPI last round. I wasn't trying to suggest that DannyS712 was a sock operator. I was only noting that the suspected sock was posing as someone else. I wasn't clear about that, so I apologize, and I've also apologized to Danny for the confusion. I picked NoraFatehi231 as a potential sock because of the editing overlap, but also because Dimpletisha tends to use feminine-sounding user names. I probably should have picked, since there is a similar overlap with other Dimpletisha socks. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:07, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:George Pell
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:George Pell. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Open proxies
hi Ivan, which is the appropriate venue to report blacklisted open proxies that are being used to disrupt controversial articles ? Apparently this isn't. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  08:07, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean by "blacklisted". I checked the Vietnamese IP address you reported for open proxies and it's clean as far as I can tell, it didn't register as a proxy or VPN in any of the databases our tools check, and our port scanner didn't reveal anything, although of course the tool generally can't prove a negative. AIV isn't the right place unless the user is actively vandalizing, in which case it doesn't matter if they're an open proxy and you'll usually get a fast response. The "right" place to report these is WP:OP/R, although it's fairly backlogged. I'm keeping an eye on the discussion at Khalistan Commando Force. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:10, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

User talk:Londoncalling67
You've already blocked the account, but legal threats were made today on the talk page.--Cahk (talk) 08:29, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/CK082n
I'm curious, why not block the "throwaway" accounts. At this point, they're just sleepers, no? -- RoySmith (talk) 19:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * When I started out clerking a few years ago, the admins who were active at SPI then didn't block any accounts that hadn't actively edited in some time, and I've kind of adopted that practice. It's kind of a judgement call, though. A lot of these spammers create throwaways with garbage passwords they don't write down, publish the article they've been paid to post, and then that account never edits again. They'll have moved on to the next throwaway for their next gig. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:11, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

2600:1:D01A:F75A::/64
I saw your AIV report to do a range block, but the contributions only shows one IP, which I've blocked anyway. Do you have any further information? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't, it's just pretty pointless to block a discrete IPv6, they rotate too quickly. A /64 usually represents one user. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 16:55, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * FYI, Ivan and, the range 2600:1:8000::/33 is now being used by WP:LTA/DENVER, geo-location not withstanding. I wonder if it's some sort of relay/proxy/whatever. Favonian (talk) 17:08, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

trade rumors
That protection was made in error but you added [sic] after it. Was there something grammatically wrong? <b style="color: blue;">Enigma</b><i style="color: #FFA500;">msg</i> 20:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll remove it, it was a silly poke at an WP:ENGVAR issue, which wouldn't have applied to that article anyway. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:05, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I spell it rumours where appropriate but this was an American article. <b style="color: blue;">Enigma</b><i style="color: #FFA500;">msg</i> 23:21, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * While I'm here, I guess I'll ask whether you think I should just resign or let arbcom process play out. <b style="color: blue;">Enigma</b><i style="color: #FFA500;">msg</i> 23:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Honestly I suggest letting it play out, although it's likely to be a miserable experience for you. I had strong words about your comment on Martinb22's sandbox, which I see has revdeleted so I won't repeat it (BB: you can review my comment at the case request if you feel it's necessary) but I stand by what I said about that. As for the rest, it's apparent that not everyone agrees that everything presented was clearly inappropriate, and it's arbcom's job to get to the bottom of everything. Or I guess you could look at it this way: if you were to resign now, rather than waiting for the case result which might end up in desysopping, the end result would effectively be the same. The case might just end up revealing justifications for many of the actions that editors are complaining about now. I don't personally like the idea of resigning because the mob has descended on you as rogue-admin-of-the-week; Arbcom is better at filtering out that effect and addressing the actual issues. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:09, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Soulspinr
It seems likely that User:Onto11, an account created hours after People's Party of Canada was semiprotected, is User:Soulspinr. 216.154.27.4 (talk) 02:40, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

2019 PEI general election
You may do as you wish with the 27 PEI ridings, concerning the 2019 election. The boxes will be created by someone, after Tuesday. No worries. GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Questions
I have a few questions regarding the community block which I hope you can answer so I can ensure that I do not make any edits which could be viewed as being out of compliance:

A) Does WP:BLP in this case refer only to living people connected with politics or tagged as politicians, or does it refer (given the "broadly construed" proviso) to ALL currently living people/individuals with articles on Wikipedia, regardless of politics? The latter would be a rather extreme interpretation.

B) Are deceased individuals (thus, NOT BLP) related to or tagged as connected to politics OK for me to edit? Or am I blocked from editing the articles of even deceased individuals tagged or connected to politics in any way?

C) Also, am I blocked from submitting for AFD any and all articles related to or tagged as connected to politics in any way? Does submitting for AFD count as editing? (I suspect it does but I just want to make sure.)

D) Is it possible and/or is there a statutory period of time I must wait to appeal (or request an amelioration or less broad construal) of the community blocks on BLP & POLITICS, as referenced above? Rms125a@hotmail.com  03:13, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your questions. Arbcom got involved with this after the community discussion so things may have changed, but with respect to the original discussion:
 * A) the restriction is from all biographies of living persons. Regardless of politics, as you put it. You are also banned from editing political topics. If it helps, consider it two separate bans: one from BLPs and one from politics; they overlap quite a bit but both are broadly construed. You may find it extreme, but the participants in the discussion found your behaviour extreme, so I suppose it's proportional.
 * B) I would say that biographies of deceased individuals connected to politics are also off-limits, per the second part of the ban.
 * C) Clearly yes. Submitting an article for deletion is an edit. Commenting on a discussion (AfD, etc.) related to a topic covered by your ban is also a violation.
 * D) In my own opinion, you can appeal any time if you think you can convince the community that the ban is no longer necessary. Practically speaking, most appeals are rejected if the appellant has not waited six months. That's not a formal restriction but it's common practice. As far as procedure, you're not blocked, so you do not need to seek clearance from me before making an appeal, just to be clear.
 * If Arbcom has modified any of this (courtesy ping and ) they have not said how or why, as far as I can tell. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 13:57, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit horrified that this indefinite block was lifted. That said, it seems the numerous edits made yesterday to living (or very recently deceased--as in the same day) individuals are already a violation of the ban. Immediately after returning, he edited Caren Marsh Doll and Rosemary De Angelis. Even if you assume the very best of faith (that he somehow didn't realize he should stay away from all living or recently deceased people until after getting clarification here and from Drmies), edits like this, made even after getting clarification from Drmies and with a damningly self-aware edit summary, seem to run afoul of it. It's not editing the direct biography, but it's editing so closely around a living person that it feels like it might as well be. Grandpallama (talk) 14:32, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * He continues to violate his topic ban with edits to Shantha Mayadunne and Louisa Moritz. I would block him because the violations are obvious but I need to ask for clarification from ArbCom on whether his successful appeal of my indefinite block somehow restricts me from taking administrative action. ?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:53, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you Bbb23--I'm not in the same boat, but I'm in a very similar one; since I brought the AN case I don't want to be the blocker, and I really don't feel like blocking anyone today, but this is just bad and incomprehensible. Drmies (talk) 15:58, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Holy moly, Grandpallama. User:Rms125a@hotmail.com, what were you thinking? Drmies (talk) 15:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "@Drmies @Grandpallama @Ivanvector's squirrel ) I realized after making the Rosemary De Angelis edits that I had goofed and I probably should have deleted them and explained in the edit summary. I didn't even think of that. I apologize. I was so used to editing all such pages that I did it without thinking. I am consciously trying to remember these restrictions. Same with Caren Marsh Doll; I just checked the edit history as I didn't even remember making the edit. I do not believe I edited Caren Marsh Doll but did seek to add her name to the List of living centenarians. I did not mean to violate the community block but being allowed to edit 20% of what one used to edit previously is a hard thing to get used to. I just came back. Give me a break. The goalposts have changed and we all make mistakes. I did not come back to get blocked immediately. I have to stop and consciously say to myself -- 'Can I edit this?' That is a very new thing. Do you know how hard it is?? The fact that I asked the questions I did to @Drmies and others shows I am trying to be in compliance. Shantha Mayadunne and Louisa Moritz are both deceased, by the way. Rms125a@hotmail.com  17:21, 22 April 2019 (UTC)"
 * They're both recently deceased, Rms125a@hotmail.com. January 2019 and (for god's sake) 21 April 2019 are recent dates no matter how you slice it. WP:BLP applies to living and recently deceased people, just as Drmies told you earlier today. (Why are you making responding more difficult by using ?) Bishonen &#124; talk 17:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC).
 * I do not know what recently deceased means, once you're dead, you're dead. I was never told that BLP includes "recent deaths". How long does one wait until a death is not recent? Moritz died in January, three months ago and the other was a victim of a terrorist attack, which is why it caught my attention. Are terrorist attacks also considered political? This is nonsensical and absurd. This entire situation derives from a handful of objectionable edits I made while logged in to Fourth-wave feminism. I did so intentionally because I was guilty of editing while pissed off. I expected some heat but not a fucking inferno. commenced to make the situation worse by banning me for having edited [for years!!!!] while logged out -- sometimes on my cell phone which doesn't allow me to log in as the screen is too small, we don't all have IPADS and sometimes because I didn't feel like logging in and dealing with all the bull**** on my talk page. Less stressful. This is something perfectly permitted as long as the reason for logged-off editing is not to evade a block, a ban, or scrutiny -- none of which was the case. There were no untoward edits among these and  presented not a single diff of a single edit (out of many thousands of edits) that was "abusive", vandalistic or anything else. If you are going to accused someone of editing "abusively", then show some evidence. Editing while logged out (as described above) was always perfectly fine. As for editing in the brief gap between the community block and the indefinite ban by  -- any such edits (there couldn't have been more than a few) were because I was not immediately aware of the community block as I had been admittedly cowardly avoiding my talk page, as I explained in my appeal of the indefinite ban, and I did anticipate such a harsh penalty. I did not participate on my own behalf in the community hearing because I was afraid I would wind up offending somebody or displaying some lack of knowledge of protocols. Thus, I am speaking my peace here even if it is the last thing I do on Wikipedia. The block itself is amazingly outrageous and disproportionate, but I thought I could deal with it. But avoiding editing all living people's articles -- a mindless and sadistic penalty and those who voted for it or supported it should be ashamed of themselves -- is harder than I realized. So I inadvertently edited the Caren Marsh Doll and Rosemary De Angelis pages. (I am going to check now and revert them if they have not already been reverted but I know that will not satisfy those who want to see me banned. I was unable to revert the Doll page due to intervening edits but I rv my edits to the De Angelis page (see )). I wonder if I had made the same kind and number [handful] of edits I made to Fourth-wave feminism to a page about, say, Donald Trump or his presidency, if the exact same penalties would have been levied and people "horrified" that the ban was lifted -- yes I am considering the possibility of political viewpoints insidiously inserting themselves into people's thinking, unconsciously or otherwise -- and  so anxious to yet again impose an indefinite ban.  Rms125a@hotmail.com  20:01, 22 April 2019 (UTC) 63.117.227.2 (talk) 19:57, 22 April 2019 (UTC)  See I typed all this on a library computer without even remembering I had forgotten to log in (although I was a little scared to lest I receive a new indefinite ban notice -- but by the time I logged out I had completely forgotten and signed in to sign off, similar situations explain some of my logged out edits but not all, by the way).  Rms125a@hotmail.com  20:01, 22 April 2019 (UTC) I am glad to see that my edits are inadvertently serving an empirical scientific conundrum ("It's not editing the direct biography, but it's editing so closely around a living person that it feels like it might as well be." Grandpallama)  "WP:BLP applies to living and recently deceased people, just as Drmies told you earlier today." -- If@Drmies told me that then I am afraid in all the excitement and stress that I didn't remember. In any event, I still do not know what constitutes a "recent death". I do not buy three months (Louisa Moritz), and the other obviously recent death (Shantha Mayadunne) was in conjunction with a terrorist event so knowing myself as I do, I am pretty sure I would have erroneously overlooked the recentness based on the terrorism aspect. We are all human and all have our idiosyncracies and failings. As I have said, learning to edit under such outrageously broadly construed restrictions (WP:BLP????????????????) is more difficult than you may realize. If I am allowed and choose to continue, I will try to remain within the guidelines and always be compliant so that in a year or so I can petition that the community block on WP:BLP be lifted. That is all I can promise.  Rms125a@hotmail.com  20:42, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Responding to pings: I would not say it was a "successful" appeal. ArbCom shortened the length of Rms125a's CheckUser block in consideration of the severity of the sockpuppetry (not very severe) and because unblocks are cheap, but on the whole upheld it as a valid block. We've done nothing to usurp or modify the community topic ban. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 20:31, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I did not represent myself at the community hearing. The above is not an appeal. It is an explanation of why I failed compliance. You try only being allowed to edit 10-20% of what you normally would as a punishment for a handful of admittedly obnoxious comments about fourth-wave feminists. The issue of editing while logged out is bogus, a canard, as I did nothing wrong and was not evading anything. And I thought I could deal with such a harsh and unfair and ludicrous ([{WP:BLP|BLP]]) block but I am simply reporting the understandable results (occasional inadvertent violations) of such an enormous restriction, especially since I have only been back two (2) days. Rms125a@hotmail.com  20:42, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Rms, I am not sure what you are trying to achieve here. Saying things like your topic ban was "a mindless and sadistic penalty and those who voted for it or supported it should be ashamed of themselves" will not ingratiate any of those editors to you should it come to a request for a reconsideration of your ban. I don't even know what "obnoxious" comments you made about "fourth-wave feminists", but I do think it's probably a good idea to use less loaded language. The AN thread that I started was about your ridiculous "false flag" claim, so ridiculous, even revolting, that it was revdeleted. Again, if you are as experienced as you suggest you are, it boggles the mind that you do not understand that "recently deceased" people fall under the BLP. It has done so ever since I have been here. Saying that the restrictions are "outrageously broad" doesn't bode well, and you wouldn't be the first one who, after a pattern of infractions has been shown, gets limited to 80% of what they've edited before; in fact, 80% is a lot. Editors have been punished more severely if you go by percentages. I hope you will remain within the guidelines, and I hope you will stop being so ... well, you're exaggerating here. Drmies (talk) 20:52, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Pretty troubled that it wasn't just recently deceased individuals, but also living individuals (on both their own pages, and on a list page of living individuals), which is a clear, brightline violation of the TBAN. And if I correctly discern the defense amongst all the invective, it's that the TBAN is too difficult to observe/follow, which is no defense at all. Grandpallama (talk) 10:53, 23 April 2019 (UTC)