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)

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)

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)

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)

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:

• [1] -- Revision as of 08:31, 12 December 2017
• [2] -- Revision as of 08:44, 12 December 2017
• [3] -- Revision as of 23:18, 15 December 2017
• [4] -- Revision as of 14:24, 16 December 2017
• [5] -- Revision as of 22:34, 16 December 2017
• [6] -- Revision as of 23:03, 16 December 2017
• [7] -- Revision as of 06:22, 17 December 2017
• [8] -- Revision as of 06:44, 17 December 2017

next

• [9]

• [10]

• [11]

[12]

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)

[[13]] Here is where it began. And it continued on to here: [[14]] 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 [15] 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.[16]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 [17] 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: [18] 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)

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)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2018

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

Administrator changes

Al Ameer son • Randykitty • Spartaz

Boson • Daniel J. Leivick • Efe • Esanchez7587 • Fred Bauder • Garzo • Martijn Hoekstra • Orangemike

Interface administrator changes

Deryck 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

• Administrators and bureaucrats can no longer unblock themselves unless they placed the block initially. This change has been implemented globally. See also this ongoing village pump discussion (permalink).
• To complement the aforementioned change, blocked administrators will soon have the ability to block the administrator that placed their block to mitigate the possibility of a compromised administrator account blocking all other active administrators.
• Since deployment of Partial blocks on Test Wikipedia, several bugs were identified. Most of them are now fixed. Administrators are encouraged to test the new deployment and report new bugs on Phabricator or leave feedback on the Project's talk page. You can request administrator access on the Test Wiki here.

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 3 December 2018. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

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

• Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (Raymond Arritt) passed away on 14 November 2018. Boris joined Wikipedia as Raymond arritt on 8 May 2006 and was an administrator from 30 July 2007 to 2 June 2008.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

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

Cora Emmanuel

Hi Ivanvector, I finally got around to doing that Cora Emmanuel draft in my sandbox to what I think could be satisfactory to move to the article space as a start-class. I’m certain it’s at least better than what that sock puppet kept making. Let me know, thanks. Trillfendi (talk) 06:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@Trillfendi: sorry this took me a few days to get to. I have moved your draft to Draft:Cora Emmanuel and submitted it to the AFC queue on your behalf. It looks good to me but I'm not familiar enough with our standards on this topic to publish it directly to article space. Please feel free to continue working on the draft in its new location, and thanks for your contribution. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:09, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 3

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)

Patriota socking

The talk page may also need to be semi-protected and another sock blocked. See this obvious first-time edit. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 03:55, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Blocked and reverted. I don't like to protect talk pages but I'll consider it for this one. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 04:01, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for considering it. I was looking at the SPI log on the master and have a question: Does this ever get bad enough that someone, maybe someone from the Foundation, approaches the master's ISP? Or do we just play whack-a-mole forever? You'd think that as long as I've been around I'd know these things, but I've always worked on the content DR side (which is how I got involved here, seeing it listed by the sock at 3O). Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 04:10, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

We have contacted ISPs for serial vandals in the past (I don't know who "we" is) but it's extremely exceptional. There "was consensus" to contact David Beals' ISP ([19]) but nobody knows if anyone actually did. Likely it would be handled privately by the Office. I probably should know these things better than most but I haven't been around the functionaries all that long. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 04:41, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Socks, oh so many socks

Ivanvector, I'm not sure it matters other than I don't want to see the wrong banned editor get blamed. My question relates to the SPI here [[20]]. Without seeing the CU data I have real trouble believing Usowwhatureap was actually 72bikers and not another HughD. Consider that we have a long list of HughD socks Enlightenthedim, Heisdum, Stankylegacypac, Morethanoneway, Simonisamentalmidget, Legacypacwerespinkpanties, Ilegacywerepinkpanties, and Ureapwhatusow. These socks all have similar behaviors and seem to be trying to antagonize a group of editors with similar editorial opinions with regards to firearms. 72bikers was previously accused of being a sock that turned out to be a HughD sock [[21]]. Now look at today. HughD was clearly active using Morethanoneway and Ureapwhatusow. I have trouble believing that between those two accounts 72bikers decides to establish Usowwhatureap. How would 72bikers even know to use multi word pattern for a user name (More than one way, U so what u reap) before Morethanoneway posted? Alternatively, what are the odds that 72bikers just happened to be watching the NRA article in the few hours during which this mess was occurring? Why would 72bikers add posts that would clearly incriminate themselves and, more to the point, make themselves look like an ass? Why would 72bikers restore a trolling post added by HughD? None of it really makes sense to me. I'm not at all familiar with how the CU system works but is it possible the earlier checks somehow crossed HughD and 72biker information? Is it possible to check to see if Usowwhatureap are technically different Ureapwhatusow? I apologize for asking given your comment here [[22]] but it just logically make sense to me so I wanted to ask if you could double check. Thanks for you time. Springee (talk) 04:18, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm honored that someone finds my cleanup work so offensive they have taken to creating mocking usernames. Legacypac (talk) 04:54, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm honored that you thought to check my edit history to find me here ;) Springee (talk) 05:02, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I have 30,000+ pages on my watchlist including this one. Legacypac (talk) 05:06, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

LP, you need therapy.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:48, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Bbb23, you might want to learn to use the template. EEng 00:41, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

@Springee: LP does comment here often, don't take that for anything. As for 72bikers I'll email you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:26, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Charizard200

Basically, the context behind this is I noticed Cyberbot was tripping up a few times on the RfX report over the last 24 hours or so. I spotted this RfA which was "live" and running on a timer, so thought transcluding it would at least correct the bot, and it would be closed per WP:NOTNOW soon enough. I then realised that not everyone likes leaving diplomatic NOTNOW opposes, so I just closed it and told the editor what's what. I think the RfA was started in good faith by somebody who does want to edit here, so I won't hold it against them in future. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:59, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Ditto, the "oppose" I left was trying to be as encouraging as I could manage while saying "this is a definite no". I didn't look hard but I didn't find anything really of serious concern, other than inexperience, but there's no doubt leaving it open would be a demoralizing experience for them. Good call. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:04, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Yup, this was very clearly a new but serious editor, not a 15 year old "I wanna be an admin so I can block editors NOW!!!" which I would have G6 nuked without hesitation. So a diplomatic touch was required. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:50, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks...

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

Quick question. When an SPI is done, using checkuser or whatever - I honestly don't know how it's done: Does the admin or the person with checkuser rights have to show their work, or do we just take their word for it? Thanks. If it's the latter, I see fundamental problems with the process, if it's not open to scrutiny. 172.78.12.200 (talk) 21:16, 8 December 2018 (UTC)