Jump to content

User talk:Ivanvector/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15

to answer a question that didn't need answering

Specifically, the one posed in this edit summary: "not sure why this one instance of the template in particular doesn't work". I think the problem is the equals sign in that quote's link to urban dictionary; I think it confused the template into thinking the first part of the quote was the name of the parameter, which then naturally goes uncalled, and then it thinks there's nothing else to display. *shrugs* I just saw your edit summary and was curious with time to kill, so I experimented with it in the sandbox. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:59, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, you're probably right. Thanks for letting me know :) Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:02, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Pages held by political lobbyists

Hi.

Thank you, the page you just edited, about the dogs owned by a Pakistani politician is kept by a lobbying mafia. They do not want this page to be discussed for deletion. They do not allow discussion. I think they know that a page about the pets owned by a politician, is not a matter that should appear in a serious encyclopedia site. They really use mafiosi means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.215.156.205 (talk) 18:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi IP. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pets of Imran Khan, where you can offer your opinions on deletion of the article. Please keep in mind th

yes I know at whether to preserve or remove articles on Wikipedia is subject to our policies on editorial inclusion and other content guidelines, not on personal opinions of the topic, and not a majority vote. You might want to have a look at our guide to deletion before you comment. Please also direct your comments to the article content, and do not cast aspersions about other Wikipedia editors. Thank you. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi,sorry for the strong word of "lobbyist", you're right, I don't know them in real life, so I don't know if they are lobbyists or not, but deleting this way a banner several times made me think they were. Several newspapers claimed that Imran Khan's dogs have a worldwide fame, because they have a Wikipedia's page. If the page is accepted, I will create a page about European presidents chickens, because if we must create page about any ridiculous things, let's go... Anyway, that's not the matter to know if this page is ridiculous or not, the matter is why some users delete the deletion proposal in an authoritative way?

This came down to just a matter of process. When you put the PROD banner on the article, you're proposing deletion. Our procedure for proposed deletion says that if another editor objects to your proposal to delete the page, they do that by removing the banner. Then, once the banner has been removed you're not supposed to add it back, but you did keep adding it back so the other users were frustrated. Once the banner is removed, if you still think that the article should be deleted then you go to articles for deletion and start a discussion. I did that part for you just to move things along. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

iBan

I just finished reading [1] A friend sent it to me because I am in the throws of my fourth conflict with Jytdog. I've been here a year, and he has shown up on every article I have worked on, making accusations, doing mass deletions, posting warnings, using his favorite fecal metaphors. I was wondering if I could request an iBan. I'm not sure exactly what it is, but it looks like something that forbids Jytdog and I to interact--is that correct? Could I get one of those please? It would really help I think. It might save my sanity and make it possible for me to continue to work here on Wikipedia. I love this place. I have never had a problem with anyone but him, but I don't know how much more of this I can take. If he doesn't like what you write he screams POV and mass deletes--without checking sources or even asking the person if he has understood correctly. And if you try to argue or defend yourself or put it back, he sends you edit war warnings and other types of threats of how he will haul you before the admins quoting WP this and Wikipedia that. This last conflict started with me asking Jytdog for help with an article I was struggling on. His criticism is often valuable, and as long as he doesn't go off the deep end, he is a genuinely good editor. So after I asked him for help, what showed up was an Afd request--from one of Jytdog's friends and supporters who had never participated in the article at all. Jytdog's vote was the only vote for deletion--everyone else said keep and work on it--but then he went and mass deleted content anyway. A couple of people have tried objecting, but he just gives a snarky reply and goes his own way. He's untouchable. He's like Trump--nothing he does ever seems to blow back on him! The guy in that incident from the archive? He said Jytdog sees himself as the crusader saving Wp, and he was absolutely 100% correct in that--but he's the one who got in trouble for saying it. I don't want to get anyone in trouble. I just want him to leave me alone. I really need that ban. At least it would keep me from crying every day. That would be a big plus for me. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777: it's very early in the morning for me and I'll respond with some suggestions when I've had some more time to look into the matter, but I want you to know I've read your message. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 10:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. That is thoughtful of you. So no ban right now, but maybe down the road? If I get banned I can still work on Wp and just not interact with him right? Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:55, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
So, I guess banning me isn't necessary this time. I am doing my best to talk, and he is doing his best to do the same I think, but for the future, I would really like to be banned from interaction with him--if there was a way to still edit. I don't understand all the ins and outs of Wp, and I guess asking to be banned is a little weird, but these kinds of conflicts take up so much time and energy and prevent work product and really screw up my day and make me a little desperate! In our last conflict he said he would shun me, and I was really hoping for that, but he never followed through. That's why I was hoping maybe if you banned me it would have the same effect. Anyway, we've taken a baby step forward. He's talking and hasn't used a fecal metaphor yet. So thank you for your response, but I think we are struggling through. Who knows--I may be back asking to be banned again in the future! Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:03, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Your alt account needs recognition

Hi, Ivanvector! Since you revealed, at the article WP:Squirrel!, that you have an alternate account named PEIsquirrel, you really ought to list that account at User:Radiant!/Classification of admins. It is a mammal, after all - right? --MelanieN (talk) 02:25, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Oops, my mistake; according to the talk page, alternate accounts don't count. However, see my comment at the talk page; we might be able to get you classified after all. --MelanieN (talk) 13:49, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Ha! Thanks for all your work on this :) Years ago I thought there was a math or numbers section on Radiant's page, but I didn't find it and I wasn't about to try to shoehorn myself in there. It's all in good fun no matter what happens. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:57, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Not a lot of work, not at all. I just happened to visit the Radiant page because of your entry at WP:Squirrel!. While I was there I noticed - SQUIRREL! - that the page was missing a category, so I suggested adding it. User:Double sharp did so, and presto! There you are! along with a few other mathematically-minded folks. --MelanieN (talk) 21:05, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

No problem, and thank you

For this— my original revert, per deny, was intentional, but then I thought I would redo it with an edit summary. And at that point, I think my IP reset, and I got some bizarre error message that stopped me editing— Something about WP trying to steal my information?! Talk about timing. The first time, certainly, that I've restored VXfC! Thanx again, —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 18:03, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

It is really sad that you are publishing wrong information on Wikipedia about KALKI Incarnation...

Composition time of Kalki Puran is considered somewhere around 10th century.

Buddhist already had this prophecy written down in form of Buddhist bodhisattva Maitreya (future Buddha) somewhere around 5-6 century. Plz, check the Maitreya Wiki page. They don't need to borrow from others... When the temple of Tirupati was captured by Shankaracharya & team, Kalki Puran was written after that. It has been said…That temple was a Buddhist temple of one of the future Buddha called bodhisattva Padampani.

Few more facts about the relationship between Vasudev Krishna & Gautam Buddha & Jain Tirthankar NamiNath…just for the references…

$ Sāriputta - Krishna's one of the births in later part :

It has been written in Jataka Tale that Krishna in his next one of the births born at the time of Buddha and became his followers. Sāriputta often preached with the Buddha's approval and was awarded the title "General of the Dharma" (Pāli: Dhammasenāpati). Relics (Asthi Shesh) of Sariputta are still kept ( Read the Wikipedia article of Sariputta ). The stupa of Sāriputta at Nalanda also exists.

Sāriputta - Wikipedia

$ Ghatapandita ( later born as Buddha ) was the Youngest brother of Krishna & Balram.

$ In the Buddhist version, Krishna laments in uncontrollable sorrow when his son dies, and a Ghatapandita feigns madness to teach Krishna a lesson. The Jataka tale also includes an internecine destruction among his siblings after they all get drunk. Krishna also dies in the Buddhist legend by the hand of a hunter named Jara, but while he is traveling to a frontier city. Mistaking Krishna for a pig, Jara throws a spear that fatally pierces his feet, causing Krishna great pain and then his death.

$ श्री नमिनाथ जी जैन तीर्थंकर वासुदेव कृष्णा के cousin भाई थे|

If you really wanna know the real facts, Plz read all the texts written down by other Vedic religions as well.

Editor using multiple accounts for disruptive editing

Hi there. I'm hoping you could help out the situation at Paul Bernardo, Sir Wilfrid Laurier Collegiate Institute, and University of Toronto Scarborough as there is a disruptive editor using multiple accounts to add unsourced information and make Bernardo look less of a criminal. I tried AIV but it was in-actionable, but using multiple accounts for his purposes should not be allowed. Thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 02:32, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Yep, on it. Have a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Princess of Scarborough Fair. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 02:52, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Sockmaster Turkspasha at it again

You performed another rangeblock on his IP range not long ago.[2] However, he's at it again (same gelocation, same edits, etc.)[3] - LouisAragon (talk) 18:21, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

This should slow them down for a bit. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:51, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! - LouisAragon (talk) 22:26, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

RfD 17 September

There are three discussions at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 September 17 that need closing. One of them, Stephni meyer, has been open over a month, every active RfD admin (including myself) has commented on it, and it's been listed at WP:ANRFC for since 24 September. It would be great if you or any other admin watching this page, could do the honours. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 13:30, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: Thank you for assuming the best of me, I had totally misread SilkTork's name and you're quite right in thinking there was no malice on my part. Thanks also for closing this very involved case. JZCL 21:58, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
That is really what I thought. It seemed very ... silly. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:59, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
I've half a mind to trout you for that last comment ;) JZCL 22:04, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

9 years of editing

Hey, Ivanvector. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day! Kpgjhpjm 14:16, 8 October 2018 (UTC)


Closing Village Pump discussions

Why have you closed the discussion when it has not even started? I was unaware of it so I asked at Help Desk and some other editor suggested it to post it there. That is best place for other editors to support or oppose the motion. I request you re-open the discussion at Village Pump. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.222.30.200 (talk) 14:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi 117.222.30.200, I apologize for the confusion. I saw that you had posted the same question in several places, which usually goes awry because you end up with separate discussions in all of those places and often you don't get the same answers or advice that's all that helpful. I thought that it was being addressed at the help desk so I closed the two village pump discussions, but then I realized that the help desk had told you to start a discussion on those boards. I went back and un-closed the one that I thought was in the most appropriate place, the idea lab. Other users should see your question there and add comments. Also note that when you leave a comment on a discussion page like this or the help desk or village pumps, you should "sign" your post by typing ~~~~ (four tildes) to end your comment. Then SineBot will stop following you around. Cheers. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:39, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Ivan! Just scrolled through Proposals and IdeaLab, people on Proposals seem to be quite responsive, could you please re-open it there. Thanks!
@117.222.30.200: you'd probably be interested in this discussion that's already ongoing about basically this same thing. Someone else brought it up a few days ago. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:00, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Ivan! Recovery of accounts is another advantage of having an email linked. Since, someone else has also brought that up and others have supported it, we should get behind them and support it. How about re-opening the discussion on Proposals, only because people seem to be more active there. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.222.30.200 (talk) 15:06, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
That goes back to what I said before, you should just add a comment to the current discussion instead of starting a new one while the first one is still ongoing. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:10, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I didn't see it in the first place until you showed it. Should we take the entire thread to Proposals? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.222.30.200 (talk) 15:13, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Someone else has already posted a note below the closed discussion at Proposals linking to the active one at Idea Lab, so now editors who are looking at either page will be able to find the discussion. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:31, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
OK, thanks! Will watch the space for further development. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.222.30.200 (talk) 16:53, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations

on getting the bit:-) ∯WBGconverse 14:30, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

^ GABgab 16:15, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
+1. Since you are CU now, your name is no longer listed in SPI clerk, like BH last year Hhkohh (talk) 08:53, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Insurgency in Balochistan

Following your 1RR restriction, Razer2115 with zero prior edits there, reverted my merely 5 hours old edit on the article, after he hadn't edited WP in over 48 hrs from his last edit. He then left a frivolous warning on my talk when I had already received one earlier and when I had already engaged on talk while he had not done so himself by then, in apparent attempt at WP:DAPE.

His WP:NOCONSENSUS rationale for reversion is invalid here. The policy says, "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." DBigXray is the one who first removed the longstanding text including a ref with a misleading edit summary. In this edit, to address his concern I merely readded it after rewording it to what the source said. Now, DBX has invoked NOTNEWS, UNDUE & what not in an apparent attempt to WP:CENSOR it. Further down the article, Kulbhushan Yadav is indeed mentioned so this infact is WP:DUE. I request you to restore it per WP:STATUSQUO until the conclusion of the talkpage discussion. This popping up of editors to support DBigXray also happened on Human rights abuses in Kashmir. This hints WP:MEATPUPPETRY to me. Both these guys are misinterpreting and misrepresenting policies on the talk and I want someone to give a WP:THIRDOPINION. Son of Kolachi (talk) 08:25, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

@Son of Kolachi, DBigXray, and Razer2115: as I've said many times before regarding pure content disputes: I am not reverting to anyone's preferred version. You can shout guidelines at me all day but I'm not doing it, end of story. Please discuss your issues on the talk page, or seek dispute resolution. As a bit of friendly advice: try discussing the edit without referring to or posting links to any WP-space shortcuts, just say what you mean. I'll be watching the page. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:22, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Revert

Thank you for that. I wish Twinkle could take that sort of thing into account automatically somehow. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:03, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I was just thinking that too, like, "don't edit pages tagged with {{deceased Wikipedian}}" or something. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:05, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

73.6.213.186

You recently blocked this IP, citing long term abuse. Is there an LTA page, SPI, or anything else that might help me determine if another editor I have encountered is related to this one? Thanks, -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:59, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

@Edgar181: no, nothing that I know of. In this case, by "long-term abuse" I mean the IP has been a shit disturber for a long time. Long enough to call it "long-term", anyway. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:19, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
OK, I understand. Thanks. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:20, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
But you might be interested in 2600:1:C61E:52FF:0:0:0:0/64 as well. You might need to turn on a gadget in your preferences to see contibs from the range. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:23, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
The IPs to recently edit Bill Donohue are the ones I'm talking about. Looks like the same individual based on behavior and geolocation. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:30, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations...

...on becoming a CheckUser. I hope you find the work rewarding. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Off topic and uncivil

Please note the article is under these restrictions.

  • Civility restriction: Users are required to follow proper decorum during discussions and edits. Users may be sanctioned (including blocks) if they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith.

The comments are completely off topic and are of a uncivil nature, they are also completely false.[4]

At 30:21 he states they don't use assalt weapons all the time only a quarter of the time and if they did not have those there are other weapons as equally deadly.

It has been stated on the AR Talk page that none of this is relevant to the article. "Where does he say "ar-125" or "assault rifle " (a-or any thing approximate to those). This page is about AR-15 style rifles, not mass shootings. So if a source does not explicitly talk about (at the very least) semi-auto rifles it is irrelevant to this article.Slatersteven (talk), 7 October 2018"

I would like to hear what uninvolved editors views are on any inclusion for the section in the AR-15 article for the "Use in crime and mass shootings". -72bikers (talk) 9 October 2018, Tuesday (8 days ago) (UTC−4)

It appears he is referring to Slatersteven's comments on denying mass shooting content. and there is much more of this behavior.

This is just a sample of this editors history of making personal attacks against me[5],[6](calling me illiterate) and has been warned about it.

  • Simonm223, this is really not cool. I know you're talking about content, but I also know that you're really not. Please refrain. Y'all please try to get along--and all of y'all, please be more careful in copyediting, both in article posts and in talk page comments. (I mean just about everyone on those talk pages.) Drmies (talk) 11:15 am, 18 September 2018, Tuesday (29 days ago) (UTC−4)

I fail to see why off topic uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, that I have shown you are incorrect should not be collapsed. please advise. -72bikers (talk) 16:24, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

As a strong POV pushing editor 72bikers, be careful what you accuse other editors of. You have a long record of minimizing any negative coverage of guns. Legacypac (talk) 16:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
@72bikers: I can't follow this, you've posted me a diff of your own comments in a discussion which you've also cut and pasted here. You've referred to a comment "at 30:21" which is a construction English speakers regularly use to refer to something happening at a certain time, but as I'm sure you know 30:21 is not a valid time, so frankly I have no idea what you're talking about. The content dispute is of no interest to me. As for Simonm223 "calling you illiterate", it's already been explained to you that he didn't call you illiterate but was referring to your edits, which were nonsense and were reverted by multiple users. You accused Simonm223 of "casting aspersions" and he's entitled to respond. I also don't know what you've shown me that's incorrect. At any rate, stop edit warring, period. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:42, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Also it was pretty clear that the aspersions you were referring to were not the statements I made in late August but rather the statement I made with regard to you requesting at WP:NPOV/N that uninvolved editors weigh in on whether the AR-15 style rifle page should address mass shootings in any capacity. Simonm223 (talk) 16:49, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
It is strange that Legacypac would come here because I do not see how this could be construed as anything other than a threat from Legacypac. I point out this was made after Legacypac was asked to stay off my talk page which would be a second violation of WP:NOBAN. You insist on removing my posts [7] (my edit summary-Stay off my talk page this should take place on the noticeboard) that are on this topic - your conduct. Do you really want me to go to a notice board to get you sanctioned while you can't edit the notice board? [8] by editor Legacypac.-72bikers (talk) 17:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Ivanvector this is the diff[9] shown above editor 223 used to cast aspersions. It was one edit to this paragraph.

This source I feel could also be used in contrast of this. "to be widely characterized as the weapon of choice for perpetrators of these crimes" This statement is only supported by the media and in the article it does not state this definitive. All of the compiled data and expert analysis say handguns are overwhelmingly the weapon of choice 62% of the time and more recent 70%. Being the facts clearly say this media claim is grossly incorrect, making it just sensationalized speculation. (I am not saying it needs to be removed, but just that it should be put into perspective.) I feel that Dr. Fox's comment on the medias sensationalized speculation's could be that perspective.

At 30:21 he states they don't use assalt weapons all the time only a quarter of the time and if they did not have those there are other weapons as equally deadly.

It has been stated on the AR Talk page that none of this is relevant to the article. ("Where does he say "ar-125" or "assault rifle " (a-or any thing approximate to those). This page is about AR-15 style rifles, not mass shootings. So if a source does not explicitly talk about (at the very least) semi-auto rifles it is irrelevant to this article.Slatersteven (talk), 7 October 2018")

I would like to hear what uninvolved editors views are on any inclusion for the section in the AR-15 article for the "Use in crime and mass shootings".-72bikers (talk) 9 October 2018

As you can see I in no way inferred what editor Simonm22 has falsely claimed "I don't think at least one other editor are going to be satisfied with anything less than the complete excision of mass shootings from the article," and "You asked at WP:NPOV/N recently about deleting all mentions of mass shootings from the page, I can provide the diff if you've forgotten,"

I fail to see why I should have to suffer this abuse. should I not take this to a noticeboard? -72bikers (talk) 17:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@72bikers: before I respond to anything else here:
  1. You've posted this link twice now as an example of Simonm223 casting aspersions, but you made this edit. If you mean to refer to a different revision then please correct your link.
  2. 30:21 is not a valid time, there are not 30 hours in a day. Nobody can follow what you're trying to say when you keep repeating mistakes like this after they've been pointed out; please correct yourself.
-- Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:26, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I see your confusion, this is Dr. Fox a professor of criminology on C-SPAN[10]. The specific time was in relation to his comments. My whole edit at NPOV noticeboard you can read from the link editor 223 used, he said supported his aspersions[11],[12],[13]. what I provided was the whole paragraph editor 223 claimed incorrectly I was trying to remove all content about mass shootings from the AR-15 article. When in fact I was trying to include mass shooting content to the article.

Again I feel I should not have to suffer this abuse. From his very first edit to the page and (even followed me to other pages) he has repeatedly attempted to belittle and badger me. What was shown is only a small part of.-72bikers (talk) 19:13, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

How is it abusive for me to point out in a diff an edit which you made on a topic which we were discussing? You have a history of taking a rather broad view of what constitutes abuse and harassment on this platform 72bikers as your several trips to AN/I for issues regarding your banning other users from your user talk page indicates pretty clearly. I wouldn't characterize me pointing out that you in fact said the thing that I asserted you said as abusive. It's just making a factual statement. Simonm223 (talk) 19:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
You seem to not be willing to address the actual issue. So lets see these alleged facts that support your claims [14],[15],[16] "I don't think at least one other editor are going to be satisfied with anything less than the complete excision of mass shootings from the article," and "You asked at WP:NPOV/N recently about deleting all mentions of mass shootings from the page, I can provide the diff if you've forgotten,"
Provide my statement or statements that reflects your alleged support of the aspersions, otherwise it is clear your actions are just civility restriction of uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith. -72bikers (talk) 19:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
@Ivanvector: just to be completely clear this is the aspersion's made by simon223 [17],[18],[19] highlighted above. I will also point out his unfounded abusive remarks above [20] This is his link that he states supports his aspersion's of being true [21]. I will point out the obvious his link in no way supports his abusive behavior of casting aspersion's. His behavior is a violation of the civility restrictions on the article.
  • Civility restriction: Users are required to follow proper decorum during discussions and edits. Users may be sanctioned (including blocks) if they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith. -72bikers (talk) 00:47, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

...He started an ANI section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Uncivil_aspersions,_personal_attacks,_or_assumptions_of_bad_faith. --Tarage (talk) 06:12, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Random thanking

I clicked the wrong button, but thanks for all the work you do here anyway Nzd (talk) 12:25, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Likewise ;) Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:37, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Re: Linking to edit revisions (diffs)

Thanks for the advice! I have no experience with that stuff. I'll follow your hint. Thanks again. Horst Hof (talk) 12:33, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Doug Ford

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Doug Ford you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Woko Sapien -- Woko Sapien (talk) 20:21, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

AfD

Your remark 'The result was Ivanvector getting whacked with a wet trout.' made my day. Thanks for that :-)

EDIT: Apparently the comment did not publish correctly the first time. Moaz786 (talk to me or see what I've been doing)`

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

SOWIEJGIOWEJGOIWJEOGJW

Sowiejgiowejgoiwjeogjw ("Jeff" for short)

Good summary, and I'm honored to be slightly incorporated into it for posterity... --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:32, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I saw that section title on my watchlist and almost reverted it because I thought it was an LTA. Natureium (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
No doubt some would say you were right... Just one who hasn't been blocked yet. -Floquenbeam (talk) 19:42, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Everyone is already blocked at long enough time scales. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:48, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
🤯 --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:52, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Let's call that Ivanvector's Xth Law (because I don't know how many other wise things you've said previously). Floq's First Corollary to Ivanvector's Xth Law: "We are all LTA's at sufficiently long timescales." --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:55, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
You know, for completeness, there should really be an audio recording of you correctly pronouncing that. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:34, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
It's phonetic. You just pronounce it the way it looks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:42, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I mistakenly reverted MPants' edit upon seeing the edit summary lol. Didn't mean to but it looked kinda' vandal-ish so I was more or less compelled to hit revert. Blake Gripling (talk) 10:55, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Apparently I've created a monster. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 11:28, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
You should never archive this thread. And you should move the occasional new thread to this one. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:36, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

help required

if you are available for an explanation? it would be appreciated JarrahTree 13:46, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi JarrahTree, yes of course you may ask for help. I'm sorry I didn't reply to your message immediately, I was busy with something else.
I presume this is about Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Manda 1993? Bbb23 removed your report because you did it wrong, and errors you made in the template were breaking things on other pages. I was going to go back and fix it later but, like I said, I found something else to do in the meantime. I deleted the other case page you created because you had already blanked it and I was going to have to delete it anyway. Can I help you with something else? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:27, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
if only, (grasshopper) if you knew how old I am in real life... the problem is I was on the way out to a meeting and i realised who was confounding me again and I got all my damned sp i cu stuff in a terrible jumble...(so I am glad BB23 moved it) - the problem with my slowness on the uptake with the editor - it is always solved when he wanders into his matrix - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Manda&action=history - a calling card more repetitions than you can possibly imagine - I had asked either you or BB23 for help - but then another bright spark diverted me. sorry to be a nuisance. JarrahTree 14:31, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
I need to wind down for a bit so I will refrain from logging a spi case, to me its so damned obvious by the diffs, but if it is still needed I will do it in about 12 hours, my psyche needs some quiet project tagging to wind down. cheers and thank you for your response, appreciated.JarrahTree 14:37, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
I already blocked the account. I'll re-file the SPI myself in a few minutes for our records. Thanks. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
That is too kind of you considering my sloppy spi reporting style, I really appreciate the way you and bb23 have dealt with my rather inept slowness of dealing with the editor, I have the horrible feeling this is third time there is something about the editor I dont pick up straight away... Thank you both, and do hope I havent created too much of a problem for anyone. Unfortunately the Indonesian project here on wp en hasnt got a good highly active admin with good bilingual capacity at the moment. JarrahTree 14:45, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Briarcliff Manor, New York

Hoping to get your advice on Briarcliff Manor, New York. I'm at a bit of a loss for what to do next. I have tried to talk to the user about the page at great length... But they seem to insist on being the only page on wikipedia using {{Geobox}} for a settlement. (See: Category:Geobox usage tracking for settlement type). Literally EVERY other page has been converted (full disclosure I did convert about 2,000 pages over the last few days, but there are 485,423 articles currently use {{infobox settlement}} so it was barely a drop in the bucket). There are a few bits of information that are being removed because the decision was made long ago that they weren't appropriate to have for a settlement. Landmark and rivers for example are not relevant. Now whether the page is protected or not I'm not planning to make any more edits to it. I have no interest in getting slapped with WP:3RR. I appreciate your need to take a neutral stance and agree that protecting the page was probably the best course here, but I'm at a loss for what to do. At every turn the user has basically said "I wrote this FA so I get the final say", but consensus has LONG been that settlements use {{Infobox settlement}}. 485,423 articles currently use the template and no one has complained about any missing fields, so I don't understand what the issue is here? 485,000+ compare to one page where one user doesn't like using the template... II genuinely would love some advice from you. Not just looking for someone to say "oh you're right". What am I missing? What would you recommend I do? Always looking to learn so any advice you can give me would be greatly appreciated. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:00, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I'll have to follow up on this a bit later, I have some deadliney things to do at the moment. The page is protected so nothing here is super-urgent, I'll pop back in later. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:03, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
@Ivanvector: much appreciated! Yea, not urgent at all, but could really use your advice. I might reach out to a couple of other admin contacts for some advice but as the original page protector and a neutral party, will greatly appreciate your advice. When you get the chance to respond, please ping me in your response to make sure I see it? Thanks!! --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:07, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2018

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Partial blocks is now available for testing on the Test Wikipedia. The new functionality allows you to block users from editing specific pages. Bugs may exist and can be reported on the local talk page or on Meta. A discussion regarding deployment to English Wikipedia will be started by community liaisons sometime in the near future.
  • A user script is now available to quickly review unblock requests.
  • The 2019 Community Wishlist Survey is now accepting new proposals until November 11, 2018. The results of this survey will determine what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year. Voting on the proposals will take place from November 16 to November 30, 2018. Specifically, there is a proposal category for admins and stewards that may be of interest.

Arbitration

  • Eligible editors will be invited to nominate themselves as candidates in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 4 until November 13. Voting will begin on November 19 and last until December 2.
  • The Arbitration Committee's email address has changed to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org. Other email lists, such as functionaries-en and clerks-l, remain unchanged.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:18, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Steven L. Anderson and Faithful Word Baptist Church

This discussion is over. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:35, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Hi Ivanvector. Is there a valid reason why you move protected Steven L. Anderson for two weeks rather than move it back to Faithful Word Baptist Church? The original move was made without discussion, and it has been contested by several editors. Standard practice is to restore the original title and for the original moving editor to seek consensus via an RM. Also pinging Anthony Appleyard who apparently declined to reverse the bold move, inexplicably. - MrX 🖋 16:53, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Responded at Talk:Steven L. Anderson. In a nutshell: when consensus determines what the title should be, someone can clean up, but it's just making more and more of a mess to keep reversing this move. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:54, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
"Requests to revert recent undiscussed controversial moves may be made at WP:RM/TR. If the new name has not become the stable title, the undiscussed move will be reverted. If the new name has become the stable title, a requested move will be needed to determine the article's proper location."
You should have reverted the move as requested and advised Beyond My Ken to start an move request.- MrX 🖋 22:17, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
@MrX: nobody is reverting the move unless the current discussion determines that it should be reverted. Fucking drop it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:08, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ANI

I do not know why you reset move protection (expired 6 hours later), not indef? Hhkohh (talk) 15:16, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Bleh, Twinkle settings. Will fix, thanks. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:18, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Question

I said you could ask me questions; I didn't say you could ask me hard questions. Just to let you know, given the current state of my brain/energy, I may not get back to you quickly. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:03, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

No worries, I don't think it's urgent at all. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

MaranoFan

Hi Ivanvector. I don't want to crowd MaranoFan's talk page, so I hope you don't mind if I comment here. There seems to be a misperception that her block was due to a single edit. That is not the case. When she made this edit, referring indirectly to Winkelvi's edits to bring them to an administrator's attention, that was a perfectly acceptable exception to the IBAN, per WP:BANEX: asking an administrator to take action against a violation of an interaction ban by another user (but normally not more than once, and only by mentioning the fact of the violation).

The problem came when she began making comments like this one in the thread about Winkelvi. I hope we can agree that that comment was not at all a legitimate exception to an IBAN, as it was neither an attempt to seek clarity on the ban or appeal it, but rather an attempt to paint another editor as biased towards Winkelvi. (Whether that charge is accurate is beside the point.)

After making that edit, she was reminded by two administrators that the IBAN was still in force and to avoid commenting on the thread. She attempted to undo that edit, but then resumed editing in the thread despite the warning. It was that series of events that caused the block.

WP:BANEX is an important part of the banning policy, but I hope we can agree that it does not give an IBAN-ed editor a blank check to comment however they wish once a thread about the other party's IBAN violation is opened. Especially not after being repeatedly reminded by administrators not to do that.

I hope this helps clarify why I felt (and continue to feel) blocking was the appropriate response. I would be interested in hearing your thoughts. 28bytes (talk) 22:30, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

They commented to provide information after being invited to participate by Admin Richie. The block was an abuse of Admin tools and has a chillin effect on any editor protected by an IBAN being able to discuss a violation against them. Legacypac (talk) 22:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi 28bytes, thanks for explaining here although I think this would have been better kept together on MaranoFan's talk page. Given your explanation I agree this was a reasonable exercise of admin discretion, and have no reason to object to the block. However, given that Winkelvi is now blocked, that the IBAN relates specifically to (alleged) harassment of MaranoFan by Winkelvi and we regularly grant leniency to editors responding to harassment, and that there seems to be significant good-faith confusion over the extent that BANEX applies, I suggest that the block be reduced to a shorter time or even to time served as some have suggested. Also, I think that would likely be the community's consensus if this were to go to AN, given the comments so far. What do you think? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:09, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Oh, also, I have urgent tax stuff to do this evening and then will probably be rather intoxicated lamenting election results (we have municipal elections today, but this comment probably also applies to tomorrow evening) so I will likely not be online for the rest of the evening. Please do what you think is best. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:12, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I appreciate hearing your thoughts. It looks like Boing! said Zebedee has accepted the second unblock request, which I have no objection to. Good luck with your taxes and the election. Cheers, 28bytes (talk) 13:18, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Krajoyn droppings

Thanks for your prompt action on the steady supply of Krajoyn socks! Among this mindlessly repetitive drone's habits is that of leaving unpleasant messages on his talk pages, this being an example. It has become something of an SOP to revoke his talk page access preemptively. Best regards, Favonian (talk) 16:28, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind for future reports. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:06, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

ARBCOM?

You seem like a sensible admin with an ability to manage dramah. Have you considered running for ARBCOM? power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I second this. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:13, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you both! Yes, I have considered it, and had concluded around the time of the election committee nominations that it's not something I would reasonably be able to take on at this time, neither the election nor acting on the committee itself, if I were elected. I do sincerely appreciate the vote of confidence, though. :) Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:25, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Oh, rats. I was coming here to suggest the same thing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:11, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Sorry to hear you are too busy now. Maybe another year. Softlavender (talk) 06:09, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Faithful Word Baptist Church

Thanks for taking care of the move after the RM, and for intervening earlier to convert my RfC to the RM. I think you handled the whole thing quite well, and you have my appreciation for it. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:33, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

91.222.68.93

The anonymous user 91.222.68.93 still has been doing some disruptive edits continuously, such as removing references in the Baojun 530 article without discussing it first, despite already blocked 4 times. Some edit summaries this user made contain unpleasant words. Could you review this user's contributions and put some action to it? 120.188.35.182 (talk) 14:20, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Unacceptable. The IP is blocked for three months. Thanks for letting me know, but in the future you'll get a faster response by reporting to WP:AIV. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:32, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Briarcliff

We're almost to a consensus here, and I'm just waiting on Hike395 to respond, yet Zackmann is now edit warring again to push his version through. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 19:48, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder

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 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 27, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, --Cameron11598 (Talk) 20:59, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

confused face icon Just curious...

Is there a particular order to the way cases are closed at ANI? I was wondering where this one stands in that line? A few cases that were opened after this one have already been closed. Atsme✍🏻📧 21:48, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh, no, there's no order to it at all, it's widely regarded as one of the most chaotic pages on the project. Discussions are generally closed when an admin comes by and determines that the incident is resolved, and that varies widely by how complex the thread is. For some of the threads opened after the IQ125 thread and already closed, they're incidents of basic vandalism that didn't require anyone to really think about what the best course of action is, and others just attracted more attention and got to a resolution faster. The IQ125 discussion is kind of hung up on the user responding, and they haven't edited in a few days. There are discussions further up the page that have been open far longer, for what it's worth. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:30, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
You described it very well..."the most chaotic pages on the project." 😂 ...and that's why I try to steer clear. I thought the user's consistent blanking of their TP was odd so I looked to see what kind of activity was being deleted. It doesn't look too good - repeated admin warnings during their rather brief spurts of editing...kinda smells a little like 🧦activity...all considered. Thanks, Ivanvector - happy editing! Atsme✍🏻📧 23:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Ivanvector. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

My Toronto election maps

Thank you for pointing this issue out. "-2" is supposed to be read as "less than 2%", but I see how it's confusing. I'll edit the maps to have greater than and less than signs instead of minus and plus.--Mr.Election (talk) 20:23, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense but yeah it wasn't obvious. Thanks for taking care of it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Balkan topic ban

Thanks for lifting the ban. I won't disappoint you. Now I can talk freely about the subject, I need first to clean up an issue with an admin that has been hanging in the air for over five years. By all means keep an eye on things but I won't make nonconstructive edits. Thanks again Ivanvector. --Sinbad Barron (talk) 13:24, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

new sock of A bicyclette

Hi, no sooner had you blocked Picaddilysquare than they're back as an IP sock: User:116.106.89.77. I've opened an SPI here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Piccadillysquare regards Mztourist (talk) 07:11, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

thanks! Mztourist (talk) 11:15, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi Mztourist, thanks for the report. Note that new reports should always be filed under the existing case for the sockmaster, A bicyclette in this case. I've asked for a clerk to merge the new report. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:38, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Sorry about that and thanks again for your prompt action. Mztourist (talk) 16:14, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
And again: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A bicyclette#03 November 2018 . This is getting really frustrating, s/he will just keep on doing this. Mztourist (talk) 04:54, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Another day, another 3 IPs: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A bicyclette#04 November 2018, if you wouldn't mind. regards Mztourist (talk) 10:07, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
2 new IP proxies today: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A bicyclette#06 November 2018 thanks Mztourist (talk) 06:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC) and now a third...if you wouldn't mind. Mztourist (talk) 10:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
After a few day's rest, another new IP: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A bicyclette#12 November 2018 if you wouldn't mind taking a look. Mztourist (talk) 06:59, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
At least the gaps are getting longer, but new IP today: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A bicyclette#25 November 2018 if you'd be so kind. Mztourist (talk) 09:11, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Handled, from the looks of it. Must be taking them longer to find open proxies we haven't already blocked. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:52, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

sexual health topic ban

I request removal of the topic ban for sexual health. I trust that a review of my edits will show I am contributing to the wikipedia community. I have reviewed the wikipedia policies relevant to medical topics, policies on self-citation, and a broad range of wikipedia materials on community standards for editors. I expect to adhere to these and other relevant policies, as they apply. If this is not the correct mechanism of requesting removal of a topic ban, please advise. Thanks for your consideration. Sbelknap (talk) 06:40, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Sbelknap: the process to appeal a community-imposed topic ban is to post an appeal request at the administrators' noticeboard for the community to review. In such an appeal it will likely come up that you have been editing subjects related to sexual health as recently as last week (per discussion at User talk:Doc James#metformin and PCOS with respect to polycystic ovary syndrome) in contravention of your topic ban (your ban is "from all articles, pages, and discussions involving finasteride, dutasteride, or sexual health, broadly construed). It's unlikely the ban would be lifted given that evidence, and it's more likely in my experience that you would be subject to more severe editing restrictions, perhaps even a site ban. Are you sure you want to appeal at this time? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:50, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
I have made every effort to comply with the topic ban, which, which broadly construed, would comprise the E52 category of ICD-10, plus a few subcategories of other categories of ICD-10 schema. Polycystic ovary syndrome is not categorized as an E52 topic but instead is categorized under E28 in the ICD-10 schema; regardless, I made no edits to the polycystic ovary syndrome article. I did make constructive edits to the metformin article about polycystic ovary syndrome. I am unaware that this would be considered sexual health, even when broadly construed. If so, I apologize for that, as my intention was to strictly adhere to the topic ban. The topic ban did not provide much detail, so I interpreted as covering topics related to the ICD-10 schema for sexual dysfunction. (Shortly after the topic ban, I suggested to Doc James that he add a meta-analysis to the testosterone article, but then learned that even posting a suggestion on a talk page on a banned topic might be considered a violation of the topic ban, so I haven't done that again.) I have made more than 1,000 edits since the topic ban; I believe nearly all of these would be considered constructive by any objective standard. I have also resurrected a redirected stub for the Dietary Guidelines for Americans wikipedia article - expanding this into a decent article, and engaged in productive collaboration with numerous editors on multiple topics. (For example, chlortalidone, Long-term effects of alcohol consumption, metformin, amoxicillin, chloramphenicol, Ford Taurus, moose, and others). Given my sincere efforts to adhere to the topic ban and my many contributions to wikipedia, I would like to petition for removal of the topic ban. Sbelknap (talk) 19:03, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Does that seem reasonable to you?Sbelknap (talk) 19:03, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
@Sbelknap: I thought about this maybe longer than I should have; my apologies for keeping you waiting. With your permission, I'd like to post the text below to the administrators' noticeboard:

Sbelknap is currently topic-banned "from all articles, pages, and discussions involving finasteride, dutasteride, or sexual health, broadly construed" (per AN discussion). The user approached me a day or so ago requesting to lift the ban. I observed he had been editing and commenting on topics related in my view to sexual health, and asked to confirm he was sure he wanted to appeal to this noticeboard, noting possible adverse outcomes. In response, he explained that in his view my description of a ban on "sexual health" was vague, and so he presumed the scope of the ban based on a perfectly relevant technical criterion (you can see this conversation on my talk page); in a nutshell he interpreted "sexual health" as "sexual dysfunction", and then made every effort to abide by that restriction. I believe this misunderstanding to be genuine and in good faith: Sbelknap is a medical practitioner who has published research in this area, while I spent much of the last decade working for a sexual health education advocacy organization in an administrative capacity; it's natural that our interpretations of the broadness of "sexual health" would not align perfectly. At any rate, no other editors have seen reason to object to Sbelknap's many content contributions in the interim, as far as I can tell, except for one incident which he himself noted (again, see my talk page). As such I believe that Sbelknap has abided by the restriction in good faith (in that he has not deliberately tried to game the restriction, for example), thus I am presenting this appeal to the community without prejudice.

Would that suit you? You can of course add your own comment below my note, or if you prefer you can post your own appeal, in which case I'll simply note that we had this conversation. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:51, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
LGTM If you would post that to the WP:AN, I'd be grateful. Thanks. Sbelknap (talk) 16:53, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

"Confirmed to the master"

So what is this supposed mean? I have no real idea what "confirmed to the master" is really meant to indicate here. If it's implying I'm someone's sock (or am farming my own) that's obviously wrong. I do have some alternative accounts, but they'er disclosed, and rarely used.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:18, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean anything by that at all, just letting you know about the account trying to impersonate you. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 01:27, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Ah! I get it now. "SMcCandllsh". Mine eyeballs didn't catch that the first time around. Also just connected the dots to the impersonation attempt at an article talk page and this SPI; I was going through the day's notices in top-down order and hadn't seen the post on my own talk yet. Sorry to, basically, ask you a dumb question I would figure out for myself 5 minutes later.  :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:41, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Falconfly has returned

I believe falconfly has returned under a new username: Amangazo. I've filed a sockpuppet investigation request, but I haven't done that before so I might have missed something: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Falconfly Squatch347 (talk) 15:26, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into the sock investigation yesterday. I was wondering if I could ask your advice. On the Tabiti page Orientls is defending the keep position, which is fine. But a brand new user showed up today with only a single edit, a support recommendation on that page. That seems a bit odd that a brand new user would stumble onto article for deletion nomination for their first edit, no? Squatch347 (talk) 14:38, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry

Very sorry for getting you roped into my messes.--v/r - TP 15:48, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I stuck my nose in that entirely on my own. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:50, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Of course, best would have been not to have created a mess in the first place, but we can only hope for so much. EEng 15:42, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

SPI with CU

Hi Ivanvector. I opened a SPI yesterday here and later I changed the CU option. Some 24 hours have passed and no CU has checked the accounts. Is there any issue with the way I filed the SPI or it is part of the procedure to wait for a few days sometimes? I am somehow confused because the accounts I reported in the past were checked very quickly, within a few hours or even minutes after I had filed the report. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:42, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

There are only a few CUs and they may or may not respond quickly, or at all to a request. Don't worry about it, let the people that work at SPI regularly worry about actioning the reports. Legacypac (talk) 01:50, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you @Legacypac: for your help. I am happy there is no issue with the way I filed the SPI. I do not mind waiting, after all editors are volunteers and real life occupations are way more important. Ivanvector, as you are an SPI admin/CU, it would be of great help if you have a look at the SPI case when you find the time. Thanks, Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Our availability tends to be poor on the weekends, or mine is at least. I'll have a look. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:42, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Ivanvector. The master seems to have an army of socks ready to use. Osourdounmou might be a sock of Goelia. The behaviour of them (obsession with moving Albanian and Ottoman articles with the same fringe and very unique POV) gives support to the suspicion. Diradul, confirmed on enwiki as a sock of Osourdounmou, was blocked some time ago as a sock of Goelia on sqwiki. In any case, Osourdounmou might have an army of socks ready, and given the level of disruption by him, that is a very bad thing. Thanks again, Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:19, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

ANI discussion

Hi. I got an email notification that you had mentioned me, and even though I left Wikipedia for good about a month ago, due to the constant conflict and what I felt was hounding, I came back to see what was going on and why anyone would be mentioning me at all. I was doubly shocked to see that the mention was struck based on something Smeat75 said. Since he was the instigator of the last conflict, but was uninvolved in any others, it's hard for me to see how he has any way of knowing what transpired over the last two years between Jytdog and myself. Smeat and I had a disagreement on the last article I worked on. We disagreed over content--on how misogynistic the Greeks were--and his counterpoint was to attack me for being Christian. What we were discussing was pre-Christian and had nothing to do with Christianity, but that was the substance of his rebuttal of my sourced position. I came to realize I have two strikes against me trying to work on Wikipedia--I'm a girl and a Christian. That doesn't sell well here. I thought I could deal, I'm strong and tough, and I pretty much did--as long as it was one bias at a time--but that last week everything seemed to pile on at once. I had to face what a miserable environment Wikipedia had been for me to try and work in from the start. I loved writing and researching for Wiki, and I was good at it. I do Master's level work, and I was actually proud of what I was able to get done here--but it was always, always done with a fight. I gave up. I don't expect Wiki to change the world we live in, but Wiki could do a better job of policing itself.

I don't mind correction, in fact, any scholar welcomes honest correction and disagreement, it makes anything anyone writes better, but not personal attacks, not insults like "this is trash" and not a refusal to talk. I do mind irrational pov pushing from people who claim they are "just protecting Wikipedia" and it turns out what they are protecting it from is anyone who disagrees with them. I don't like that things are stacked in favor of the troublemaker. One of Jytdog's favorite methods is completely reverting entire blocks of text and then edit war warning you. If you attempt to do anything in response to his precipitate action, according to Wikipedia rules, you are the one in the wrong. About once a month someone shows up on his talk page complaining about him reverting entire sections, refusing to explain, saying things like "It's garbage" then refusing to talk and throwing them off his talk page--"privileges revoked"--if they dare argue with him. The procedure is stacked in his favor and he knows how to work the system. People here are actually scared of crossing him.

I have a short record of a few of Jytdog's early comments from our first meeting:

  • [22] -- Revision as of 08:31, 12 December 2017
  • [23] -- Revision as of 08:44, 12 December 2017
  • [24] -- Revision as of 23:18, 15 December 2017
  • [25] -- Revision as of 14:24, 16 December 2017
  • [26] -- Revision as of 22:34, 16 December 2017
  • [27] -- Revision as of 23:03, 16 December 2017
  • [28] -- Revision as of 06:22, 17 December 2017
  • [29] -- Revision as of 06:44, 17 December 2017

next

[33]

After awhile I just stopped keeping track. They're easy to find though--go to any page I ever worked on, they'll be there. Once, he even reverted me and sent me an edit war warning on Women in the Bible when what I did was what he had requested! I don't see how he could have even read it without realizing that I was fully cooperating. I suspected at the time that he reverted it just because it was me--sort of a knee-jerk response to anything I wrote.

Jytdog repeatedly emailed me. I told him that I did not want to discuss anything with him privately. I had to ask him not to email me, more than once. He asked for my phone number, and I told him he better not call me! I wanted everything between us to be a matter of record on Wikipedia. The only time I ever got an acknowledgement from Jytdog that he was wrong was when I went to the Village Pump and posted a request for guidance there and someone intervened, saying in public, that Jytdog was mistaken and that I had not done what Jytdog accused me of. I think it embarrassed him, and he apologized. That's the only time.

Jytdog is a real problem. He seems to think Wikipedia is his kingdom to rule as he sees fit, and Wikipedia abets it. But the real problem is the environment and the system that makes it easy for people to cause trouble and hard for people to avoid it and just get some work done. ANI only works for the most egregious offenses. Consensus does resolve most things, but not everything. Sometimes the majority is in the wrong, and on Wikipedia, there is no recourse for that. You end up with Trump as President. You're just screwed. So I left. I loved it, and I left anyway. It was just too unhealthy an environment for me.

I am gone from Wikipedia so I am not asking you to do anything for me, but I got concerned about that strike out, and I thought you should have a little more information. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:18, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I strongly object to that accusation User:Jenhawk777 Smeat and I had a disagreement on the last article I worked on. We disagreed over content--on how misogynistic the Greeks were--and his counterpoint was to attack me for being Christian. Outrageous. I did no such thing. What are you talking about?Smeat75 (talk) 13:52, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
[[34]] Here is where it began. And it continued on to here: [[35]] It's been cleaned up since, but even there you said content "read like a Christian sermon"--why and how did "Christian" get involved in a discussion of the Greeks? You didn't agree with the pov of what I wrote on the pagans, so why not offer sources that supported your view and showed that my sources were incorrect? I can't imagine disagreeing with someone and telling them it's because they have a "Jewish" point of view without justly being accused of anti-semitism in return, so why was that okay for you to do to me? Then you went on after I left and accused me of plagiarism even though as Grabergs said the copyvio detector didn't pick up anything but ordinary phrasing. Yes, we had a disagreement over content. Yes you drug in personal commentary.Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:48, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Do not accuse me of attacking you for being a Christian without diffs proving such an attack. Saying parts of the article read like a Christian sermon is not an attack on you. Look at [36] on the talk page, where what was said in the article at that time about 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 did not quote the actual text but instead delivered what I called "a little evangelical sermon" and Gråbergs Gråa Sång said he had had a similar thought some months before but did not do anything about it. The parts of the article you put in about Greeks and Romans were very POV and slanted, I have tried to remedy that since. I can't imagine disagreeing with someone and telling them it's because they have a "Jewish" point of view without justly being accused of anti-semitism in return, so why was that okay for you to do to me? Give a diff of where I said anything like that, you cannot because I never did. Talk pages do not get "cleaned up" btw and yes, you did copy passages word for word out an article and then put false sources on at at least two of them, see the section "Copyvios in this article?" on the talk page.[37]Smeat75 (talk) 16:04, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure if Jenhawk was trying to produce the diff where I referred to a "Christian sermon" if so she didn't produce it, here it is [38] and it can be seen that what I said was I would say generally that a lot of this article reads like a Christian sermon not an encyclopedia article. That is not an attack on User:Jenhawk777 or anyone else.Smeat75 (talk) 17:28, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
That makes two places. I did not include that particular diff, it didn't seem necessary since this wasn't primarily about you, but this is the one I was referring to: [39] Why was Christianity even mentioned? And of course it was aimed at me--it wasn't relevant to what was being discussed in the article--that was about the Greeks--then you brought in 'Christian.' It was unnecessary. And no, I do not plagiarize, did not, have never, did no such thing as put "false sources" on anything, that's crazy, and those are the kind of wild accusations without foundation, accuracy or support that makes Wikipedia such a miserable place to work. People can't--reasonably--just say whatever they please and then act indignant that people get upset!
We had a disagreement over content. You responded with something that was not relevant to content. I did not respond in kind. That conversation was badly handled. That's what the diffs show. Now let's be done with this, please. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:35, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
I am sorry to be having this discussion here User:Ivanvector but since I have been accused,by username, of attacking an editor for being a Christian on an admin's talk page I would like to know your opinion. NPA says Comment on content, not on the contributor. Saying That section of this article is like a Christian sermon and I would say generally that a lot of this article reads like a Christian sermon not an encyclopedia article are comments on content, not a contributor, are they not? and therefore to be accused of "jumping on" or "attacking" Jenhawk for being Christian is not justified, or is it? Please tell me if I am wrong. NPA also says Accusing someone of making personal attacks without providing a justification for your accusation is also considered a form of personal attack and I would consider that to be applicable in what Jenhawk says about me. What do you think? Thank you.Smeat75 (talk) 05:52, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Why mention religion? You can discuss what you consider a pov issue without it. Why was it necessary to mention at all? Turn the tables, change the religion being mentioned, it's easy to see from an alternate perspective that it's just inappropriate. It's not viscious, so perhaps attack is too strong a word--but it is a kind of strawman--it distracts and prevents constructive discussion. How can anyone reasonably respond? What would actually assure you my motives for what I wrote did not have anything to do with anything but what I found in the sources? That doesn't prove neutrality in itself, but it does show the pov discussion got lost in the muck stirred up by those comments. I freely admit that I get enthusiasms for some new books. I read and get excited about what I've read and when I write it up that comes across. I have to go back and "neutralize" it--usually I eventually see it myself, but sometimes someone else calls me on it, and then I fix it--but it has nothing to do with religion.
Take another view and ask: What good is accomplished by using someone's religion to discuss content? In what way did it further cooperation or consensus?
Smeat, I'm sorry I have offended you, I genuinely am. I respect you and your work. We have gotten along in the past and have handled disagreements through compromise every time--up until the one discussed here--which you seemed to have taken very personally and responded in kind. I don't know if you have been influenced by My Favorite Dog, who says this every time he speaks to me, or what is going on exactly, but I know your response backed me into a corner with nowhere to go. My religion has nothing to do with anything here on Wikipedia and using it to criticize is inappropriate for anyone to do. I think you are generally above that kind of thing, and I was deeply distressed at hearing it from you. You hurt and upset me too, to the degree I abandoned something I loved. Try to see your comments from my pov, put yourself in my shoes if you can. I think you're a decent person and it was just this one discussion with you that got off the rails, and I believe you're honest, but it seemed to me you got mad at what I wrote and went after me, and that's what those comments were about. I could see no other reason for you to include them. Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:21, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
User:Ivanvector I would like to see Wikipedia make it an actionable requirement that a person's religion, race, gender, country of origin, or political party not be allowed to be used in any content dispute. There's no reason for those highly volatile personal aspects to ever be a part of the discussion which should always stay focused on content. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:48, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2018

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

Administrator changes

readded Al Ameer son • Randykitty • Spartaz
removed Boson • Daniel J. Leivick • Efe • Esanchez7587 • Fred Bauder • Garzo • Martijn Hoekstra • Orangemike

Interface administrator changes

removedDeryck Chan

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, the Mediation Committee is now closed and will no longer be accepting case requests.
  • A request for comment is in progress to determine whether members of the Bot Approvals Group should satisfy activity requirements in order to remain in that role.
  • A request for comment is in progress regarding whether to change the administrator inactivity policy, such that administrators "who have made no logged administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped". Currently, the policy states that administrators "who have made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped".
  • A proposal has been made to temporarily restrict editing of the Main Page to interface administrators in order to mitigate the impact of compromised accounts.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • In late November, an attacker compromised multiple accounts, including at least four administrator accounts, and used them to vandalize Wikipedia. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. Sharing the same password across multiple websites makes your account vulnerable, especially if your password was used on a website that suffered a data breach. As these incidents have shown, these concerns are not pure fantasies.
  • Wikipedia policy requires administrators to have strong passwords. To further reinforce security, administrators should also consider enabling two-factor authentication. A committed identity can be used to verify that you are the true account owner in the event that your account is compromised and/or you are unable to log in.

Obituaries

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mazaaq Raat, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Muhammad Sarwar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ivanvector/Archive_10&oldid=1088027925"