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)

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

• Turkspasha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

You performed another rangeblock on his IP range not long ago.[1] However, he's at it again (same gelocation, same edits, etc.)[2] - 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:-) ∯WBG^converse 14:30, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

^ GAB^gab 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.[3]

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[4],[5](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 [6] (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? [7] by editor Legacypac.-72bikers (talk) 17:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Ivanvector this is the diff[8] 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[9]. 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[10],[11],[12]. 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 [13],[14],[15] "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)