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)

Aside comment

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

MegaCyanide666

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think I hadn't mentioned but KahnJohn27 was editing Boing's talk page in 2016[1] from completely same location as DraculaTheDragon is editing on 2018.[2] KahnJohn27's IP was often reverted by Boing as "SiddharthSunny"(sock of KahnJohn27).[3] Also why the message was being posted on talk page of Boing but not any other admin? In 2018's message [4] Draculathedragon also noted that "I've shifted my internet connection", that's why ISP is not same but everything else is same as his IP from 2016.

If you agree, since I see no reason why you should not, I want to also note that just now an account who never even socked for 3 years is getting unblocked, but not without topic ban and revert restriction.[5] KahnJohn27 is not to be treated as a special case and as noted below, the deceptive lines like "I forgot password" should not be taken seriously when the person claims they forgot every accounts' password even the sock's, which is not possible. Capitals00 (talk) 17:22, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I was pinged on the AE but I will respond here. My SPI mentioned Act345 who is also from same location as DTD. It was not about KahnJohn. If people are allowed to claim that they "can't remember" password,[6] and that's how they find ways to evade scrutiny, then why they should request unblock from their main account? This issue is serious and well capable of setting a bad precedent and should be discussed in a broader forum. Accesscrawl (talk) 17:00, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

A top icon for you

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

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

Cite act

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gender

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

Administrators' newsletter – September 2018

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

Administrator changes

None

Asterion • Crisco 1492 • KF • Kudpung • Liz • Randykitty • Spartaz

Optimist on the run → Voice of Clam

Interface administrator changes

Amorymeltzer • Mr. Stradivarius • MusikAnimal • MSGJ • TheDJ • Xaosflux

Guideline and policy news

• Following a "stop-gap" discussion, six users have temporarily been made interface administrators while discussion is ongoing for a more permanent process for assigning the permission. Interface administrators are now the only editors allowed to edit sitewide CSS and JavaScript pages, as well as CSS/JS pages in another user's userspace. Previously, all administrators had this ability. The right can be granted and revoked by bureaucrats.

Technical news

• Because of a data centre test you will be able to read but not edit the wikis for up to an hour on 12 September and 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time. The time when you can't edit might be shorter than an hour.
• Some abuse filter variables have changed. They are now easier to understand for non-experts. The old variables will still work but filter editors are encouraged to replace them with the new ones. You can find the list of changed variables on mediawiki.org. They have a note which says Deprecated. Use ... instead. An example is article_text which is now page_title.
• Abuse filters can now use how old a page is. The variable is page_age.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee has resolved to perform a round of Checkuser and Oversight appointments. The usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will be requested to assist in the vetting process. The deadline to submit an application is 23:59 UTC, 12 September, and the candidates that move forward will be published on-wiki for community comments on 18 September.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

SPI help

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

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

Sorry for the revert!

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

In relation to this same thread, I would ask if you can strike/modify that part of the comment where you said Nauriya and Faizanali.007 are unrelated? Those accounts were confessed by him to be his own.[7] Lorstaking (talk) 17:06, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Deletion of Pablo Morgado

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

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

Nauriya

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

Why don't you do anything

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

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

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

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

Please comment on Talk:Antisemitism

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Antisemitism. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 8 September 2018 (UTC)