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.

Imputation of tag-bombing a blocked user

Your imputation that I was tag-bombing a blocked user is unfounded. The time frame of their edits, straight out of a previous week-long block, was within a span of just 43 minutes; I intervened 20 minutes in. My last warning to them was only a minute after their final edit and several minutes before you imposed the block. I then made several further reversions of their edits but, having seen the block, gave no further warnings. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

@Mutt Lunker: my apologies, I failed to assume good faith. I had already blocked the user based on an investigation elsewhere, and only when I went to the page to leave a block notice did I see that you had rapidly (in the span of 17 minutes) left four templated warnings, including one which was a duplicate. You had stopped more than an hour prior to my revert of your notices, but I miscalculated the time difference and thought you were still in the middle of it. That's my own incompetence, and I should not have addressed you so aggressively even if I had been correct. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:40, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

No worries. (FWIW, none of the warnings were quite the same and the 4th was a swap for the 3rd one, which I deleted, "disruptive" being more apposite than "vandalism".) It didn't surprise me in the least to find out they were a known sock; disruptive as they were the competency looked too high for a newbie. All the best. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

2600:1012:b150:9c4d:d8a9:d1fd:a0e6:46ec

Could we please get an immediate block on user:2600:1012:b150:9c4d:d8a9:d1fd:a0e6:46ec. She clearly will not stop until blocked. CLCStudent (talk) 13:33, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Blocked. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:34, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Trouted

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: listing WikidPad as a biographical AFD. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:35, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Wackamole time

As suspected we have yet another sock of 2TigerBW - is it ok to message them here or should I place them elsewhere? -----Snowded ^TALK 16:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Another just popped up - looks like trying to do better but still an identical pattern. I suspect this will go on for a bit -----Snowded ^TALK 04:57, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

The latest to fit the bill? Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@Snowded and Mutt Lunker: please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/2TigerBW. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Time for a range block? Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:42, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Abbieend3. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:57, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Communist Party of China

Hi Ivanvector,
I am a non-admin closer of Talk:Communist Party of China#Requested move 16 July 2020. Can you please restore the previous page protection? — YoungForever^(talk) 20:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@YoungForever: looks like El C beat me to it. ¡Gracias! Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia proposals request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:List of active coal-fired power stations in Turkey on a "Wikipedia proposals" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 06:31, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Cut and past move from deleted article?

Hi Ivan, could you help me? I have a strong feeling that the recently created Draft:Dos Corazones is a somehow recovered version of the deleted article Dos Corazones. Is that something you could check, and possibly merge their edit history? Thanks! BOVINEBOY2008 14:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Yep, it definitely is, and was also created by a sockpuppet. Rather than merge I have deleted it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:00, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for looking into it! BOVINEBOY2008 23:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Notice of ANI that mentions you in passing

Greetings, FYI I filed a request at WP:ANI titled "CIR-based community-imposed site ban re: RTG". In providing a basis for my request I mentioned you and your prior dealings with this editor. Your input at ANI is optional, i.e., invited but not specifically requested. Thanks for reading. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:58, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Being accused of being a sockpuppet

Hi, Ivanvector, I am a Wikipedian and am being accused of being a sockpuppet of Xayahrainie43. This user is a sockpuppet operator and his original account has already been blocked. However, people think that my activity is similar to that of him and his sockpuppets and think I am one of his sockpuppets. I am not. Since you're a checkuser, I'm notifying you. Please check the current sockpuppet investigation (not the archived one) of this user for more details. (More details on the sockpuppet investigation page.) Also, since you're a checkuser, you should be able to see my IP address. Thank you. Friend505 (talk) 13:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Sock or at least DE

Hello, back in October 2019 you blocked an editor who was changing EngVar on pages even after clear explanation of the policy. It appears this editor is back, as a sock (see this discussion for further details, in particular the recent additions). Today he has moved on to another page, even after acknowledging the explanation of the policy on his talk page. Whether or not this is a sock, the editor has become disruptive as he continues to apply his personal view of the MOS:TIES policy. Thank you, Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 14:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@Laszlo Panaflex: please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HughEverPulsatingBrainThatRulesFromTheCentreOfTheUltraworld in a few minutes. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again – and such prompt service, wow! Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 15:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Trouted

You have been trouted for: Endorsing the permanent ban of Adûnâi based on one single edit summary from 3 years ago. Seems a bit harsh and dare I say politically or socially motivated... Also you called his opinion "objectively disgusting". How are religious editors and editors who believe that marriage is between a man and a woman supposed to believe that you can be a truly unbiased admin? PS: I'm an agnostic person who is 100% ok with same-sex marriage. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 03:32, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

This is a poor summary of the situation. The comment that led to the block was "objectively disgusting" to the point that it has been removed from public view; it will have to suffice to say that I used the word "objectively" because I honestly believe that any reasonable person holding any set of beliefs, even if they were among the very large population staunchly opposed to marriage other than between one man and one woman, would have found the comment inhumane and terrible. Even if a reasonable person agreed with the underlying sentiment, they would not have said such a vile thing on this website. I'm not going to repeat it here, I would expect to be blocked myself. It was bad. But yes, it was three years ago, and I've said myself many times that we can't expect to block for incidents so far in the past, and would not have had that been the end of it. But it wasn't: the user responded to the criticism in that thread by defending the comment, and trying to pass off their insensitive trolling as a joke. It was after that comment that they were blocked, and justly so.

You can hold whatever beliefs you want (excepting Nazis) and nobody will have a problem with your editing here. We don't expect anyone to have no opinions at all; admins are not the thought police and an admin who was going around blocking editors just for having opposing views would not be an admin for very long. But when an editor thinks it's acceptable (or worse, "funny") to make comments using words and phrases that are explicitly meant to attack and dehumanize, they're not fit to participate in a collaborative project and they will be shown the door. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia proposals request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) on a "Wikipedia proposals" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:31, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Help to improve the article

Hi Ivanvector! I saw that the page Ingush people has some problems with the content and with the edit war. I want to improve this page and wanted to ask you for help. I think I can be sure of your objectivity. Will you help me? — Adam-Yourist (talk) 22:47, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Demolition Man (film)

How long do you plan to lock the article for Demolition Man? A week, a month, indefinitely? Unfortunately unlike user blocks, page locks do not (seem to) indicate how long they will last.

If you look at the edit History you will see that it was locked and left that way apparently for years. It was only recently unlocked and I've worked extensively since then to to improve it. The disruptive edits by the anonymous editor who wouldn't even follow the WP:SIMPLE rules and explain his changes or discuss on the talk page, were mildly irritating but not enough for me to try and have him banned or to have the article locked (preventing me from improving it).

On the basis that Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia that anyone can edit I would much prefer if the article could be protected but allow flagged edits, if possible. But please please please don't lock the article indefinitely again. -- 109.79.65.37 (talk) 13:10, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Nevermind, I checked again. Apparently the lock is until August 12. You might need to lock it for another week or two after that but we will see. Maybe I can find more sources in the meantime. -- 109.79.65.37 (talk) 13:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC)