User talk:Ivanvector

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

BLPSOURCES

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

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

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

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

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

Discretionary sanctions advice

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

Please carefully read this information:

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

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

Template:Z33--John (talk) 19:53, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

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

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

NadirAli

Hi Ivanvector. Another recent finding shows that NadirAli edited with IP as recently as May this year.[1] 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[2] that could have created trouble for NadirAli if he had used his main account. NadirAli socked with one IP as recently as 9 May.[3] 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)

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)

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)

Request for assistance

[4] 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)

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.[5][6] 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.[7] 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 [8]

Hi, I am suffering with a drain out legitimacy.Please check this [9] 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)