Jump to content

User talk:Ivanvector

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Trout this user
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Leprof 7272 (talk | contribs) at 23:33, 2 May 2017 (→‎Please refer me to the place where...). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:DailyBracketBot


Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Canadian

I saw in the block log some recent blocks. One of the blocks was made by you. There's too much to do in Wikipedia but what caught my eye was that you are a Canuck! Otherwise, I'd say nothing. It is unclear to me your decision that this April user is "not here to contribute to the encyclopedia". Consider mentorship or at least an explanation and way for this person to do remediation. Vanguard10 (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vanguard10, thanks for your note, I appreciate you bringing up your concerns here. The user you're referring to made two disruptive edits at Talk:Donald Trump, one which clearly violated our biographies of living persons policy, and they were warned to stop. Instead, they tried to report the user who removed their edits to an administrative noticeboard. In my opinion, their behaviour shows that they're not here to contribute to the encyclopedia, and they ignored adequate warnings to stop before I blocked them. They did appeal, and another administrator agreed that they should remain blocked. You can raise this at the administrators' noticeboard if you'd like to pursue further, but my best advice is to not worry too much about it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Ivanvector! Thanks for your kind response. As far as "you can raise this at the WP:AN", that's far too confrontation to do when Canucks are supposed to be polite! I usually try to understand another person's perspective. When doing this, there was clearly not a meeting of minds between you and April.
You said they violated BLP and "were warned to stop." However, April probably didn't see any warning because all I see is a warning from Tony on April's user talk page saying to stop disrupting (with no explanation on what was disruptive) and clearly no BLP mention, which was your reason for blocking. Tony also removed both of April's Talk:Donald Trump edits, which is very easy to interpret as aggression and should usually not be done.
I cannot see any BLP so please educate me. I see a mention of Abu Ivanka, but that was all over the news and a positive news story about a name of respect used in the Arab world (google the term). So, once again, I write not to campaign for an unblock but merely that I see quite a bit of miscommunication, probably no BLP, no clear warning, and not a situation where everyone is polite and thoughtful. I hope that Wikipedia becomes more of a thoughtful and polite place, which can only happen if we do our parts and follow such goal. Can you fix this situation? Vanguard10 (talk) 02:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my intention to be impolite with you, only to point you in the right direction if you wanted to ask other users about this. I've posted there now with an explanation of the situation, because you might be right and I'd like other users to comment. You're welcome to add anything there that you think I might have missed or might be important to the discussion. I'm also going to leave a note on your talk page: the note itself isn't meant to be threatening, but it's required by policy when making a post at that noticeboard that mentions a user. Thanks again. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 10:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here's my take on the April user. From this, I learned about BLP. That will be a long term lesson from interacting with a fellow Canuck. However, I have also looked at the definition of sock. Samswik and April do not have overlapping edits (one ends in February and the other doesn't begin until 6 weeks later) nor do they have overlapping interests. April seems like a child and Samswik seems like a movie buff. So, I do not think they meet the definition. Maybe Samswik is the older sibling of April? (that is purely speculation when trying to consolidate all information and assuming the checkuser is correct). I believe Wikipedia culture is too fixated on socks and reasoning often goes out of the window the moment the thought of socks comes up. Since April is likely a child, this could be quite traumatic. Mentorship of some sorts may be more appropriate for proper child development or at least some positive words of encouragement.
My involvement in this whole matter has been research into terminology, like BLP, etc. Therefore, I make no recommendations as far as this specific user, merely that some of the terminology used appears to be inappropriate and do not meet the criteria (sock, BLP, etc.). Furthermore, I am not asking you to do anything, although some words of encouragement from you to April may be beneficial for a child. Vanguard10 (talk) 06:08, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately there's not a lot I can do about it at this point. The user is blocked based on technical evidence, which is private. Only a very small number of users who sign a disclosure with the Wikimedia Foundation are allowed access to the CheckUser tool which allows them to look up private technical information about an account's connection to our servers. I don't have access to it but Bbb23 does, and he found evidence of a connection and blocked both accounts. Administrators (like me) aren't allowed to overturn a CheckUser block under any circumstances. Both of the accounts were warned about discretionary sanctions for disruptive editing on American politics articles (like Donald Trump), and making a new account to avoid scrutiny from past editing is explicitly forbidden, so based on the info that's available to me it does look like this was a good block. The user can appeal if they would like. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I did not ask for the user to be unblocked because my concern is about definitions, not a specific block. I am concerned that there is no evidence that there was a "new account to avoid scrutiny". Neither account edited much about Trump, which is a very high traffic article. April did not get into fights about Trump. Even if they are the same person, it could be a lost password, a younger sibling or some other explanation that doesn't meet the true definition of sock. This would be consistent with the checkuser's findings and with opposing behavioural evidence.
Besides definitions, I am more concerned with the mental well being of a child. April is clearly a child, something someone else also noted. There is a risk of suicide, albeit unknown how big a risk. I know you are limited in questioning a checkuser because they are much higher ranked than you, which is why I am not asking for unblocking. I am the last person who would suggest unblock, but I am the first person to want the face of Wikipedia to be compassionate, not arbitrary, and very transparent. I have enough life experiences to see gross unfairness happen even though it's not apparent on first glance, to see anguish, and even suicide (not Amanda Todd, a well known teen suicide in BC a few years ago, but a friend of mine when I was in my 20's). Maybe it is necessary for there to be an ombudsman that works with checkusers to try to make blocks more human?
Perhaps all this discussion is because Canadians are polite and considerate, eh? (ha, ha, I don't really say "eh", I don't think, eh?)Vanguard10 (talk) 03:16, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SPI

Thank you for having a look at this SPI. I have added new information to it which I feel strongly demonstrates a link between these two editors. Many of us work hard to keep the music articles free of vandalism and original research, and Xboxmanwar undermined the hard work of many editors. I sincerely appreciate you having a look at this. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

I had the feeling that was Nsmutte again. Glad to see they confirmed my suspicions. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I had a feeling, but I've been giving people side-eye all week about jumping to sockpuppetry conclusions. Ducks gonna quack. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you

Thank-you for the Advice. I was talking about the Chazz Miller page, I will edit this to make it better. 

I really want to make that page nice for the people of Detroit.   I will definitely check out,

WikiProject Michigan/Detroit|WikiProject Detroit. I contacted the director of the charles h wright museum in detroit and Chazz Miller is a notable person and he started the Mural Movement in Detroit, but that aside Eliza Howell Park How do I prove that Chazz is notable? Do I have to create a page for his Non profits, Artist Village and Detroit Public Art Workz to give him validity?

This is all a learning experience. Sorry for the annoying errors.Chickee 18:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThatChickOverThere (talk • contribs)

Another thank you from me. I plan to consider all of your advice and not edit for at least 48 more hours to fully absorb it. I have positive feelings towards you but cannot say that is true about Yamla, who wrote some very threatening words. There should be an interaction ban between Yamla and me but I doubt Yamla would ever follow that. That's too bad for Wikipedia civility. Thanks again. April Fools Day After (talk) 02:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017

I just want to point that almost all of the warnings on my talk page are from Magnolia677. Anyway, thanks for solving the case, I hope something like that doesn't happen again to me. Bloomdoom2 (talk) 14:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dead sockpuppet case reopening

Is it okay if I can reopen a sockpuppet case? I've found a sockpuppet of Lycoperdon named Nochyyy. I bringning this to attention because the user makes edits related to the current Yemeni Civil War, removing North Korea and Russia as supporters and all of his other edits only in areas pertaining to Middle Eastern conflicts. Thanks. RainbowSilver (talk) 14:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there RainbowSilver, thanks for your question. In this case you would just be opening a new case/report, which is fine. Navigate to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations and find the bar above the current case list which reads "How to open an investigation". Enter Lycoperdon in the "sockmaster's username" box and click submit, and the form will guide you through the process. You will be able to preview your work before saving your report. It may take a few days for a clerk to review your report. If you have any questions let us know. Cheers. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:10, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Block

Hello, you have blocked Sher E Punjab - Maharaja Ranjit Singh. However, the page has been created as Sher-e-Punjab: Maharaja Ranjit Singh. Is it still banned? If the ban has lifted, please redirect the banned title to this link. Thanks. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 19:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Capankajsmilyo: thanks for your note. In terms of being recreated, I think the page is okay. In my opinion the creator of the new page is not obviously a sockpuppet, and that was the reason for the page having been deleted before. I will remove protection from Sher E Punjab - Maharaja Ranjit Singh so that you can create a redirect if you would like. If you need help please let me know. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
... on second thought, I've requested another check. It's suspicious. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That one favorite person?

I'm about to step out in RL, but was wondering ... does Nicktoonspl15 look like a sock of Fangs to you? It's making my sock radar go haywire it's so off the charts. Steel1943 (talk) 22:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Steel1943: that's an impressive level of coincidence, yes. I pulled together an SPI and endorsed for a CU check. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
...Unrelated. Didn't expect that at all. Steel1943 (talk) 01:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) They could've just bought a new machine and moved house, eh. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 13:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt it with this master. It's a head-scratcher, anyway. Bbb23 closed it pretty quickly, I think we should take that as a sign we're way off the mark here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good thinking. --Bbb23 (talk) 13:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Odd redirects, look redundant to me

Sorry, gotta run--[1]. Drmies (talk) 21:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: I'd say some of them are silly, but only maybe a handful are possibly problematic. I'll RfD some. My general view on redirects is that clutter is irrelevant: if a user genuinely feels that a redirect will be useful then that's good enough, so long as there aren't other problems with it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. You know I came here via Neelix. :) Drmies (talk) 16:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know....

....if you have seen this. Regards,--Maragm (talk) 10:56, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you take a look at these edits/IP?

Can you take a look at these edits and advise what can be done? Thank you. Hmlarson (talk) 20:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hmlarson: we don't normally block IP addresses for long periods because they get reused by unrelated editors, but this IP had already been blocked for this so I re-blocked for 1 week. Thanks for your report, but you may want to report at WP:AIV next time for a faster response, your note landed here overnight for me. You can also request page protection at WP:RFPP which will prevent all new and anonymous users from editing the page, but I don't think the current level of disruption warrants it at the moment. Cheers. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 10:54, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Appreciate you taking a look. Hmlarson (talk) 15:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer me to the place where...

...the matter of disruptive editing (to which you refer) has been discussed, leading you your blocking a particular IP address. I always identify myself, and there is no question of sockpuppeting. Hence, it is unclear on what policies or basis that this decision has been taken (and with what administrative authority). Please see my user page for who I am. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:27, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from your user page. --NeilN talk to me 04:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I had this at the top of this section. It was moved twice. --NeilN talk to me 05:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
These edits, now appearing in the order in which the edits were made, includes the second, a reply from someone other than Ivanvector, and is incomprehensible. What was moved from my User page? And why was this section, at Ivanvector's Talk page, the individual who issued the block in question (and so is the involved party, of whom clarification was requested) removed by you, NeilN? If you are not neutral and objective in matters pertaining to me, please, as an administrator, with advanced rights and responsibilities—recuse if you cannot act fairmindedly. Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:50, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Leprof 7272: Look at where you posted originally. Jeez. --NeilN talk to me 04:55, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again, your succinctness communicates nothing clearly. My first communication, on the matter at hand (the block of an IP address, experienced today), was at 04:27, 30 April 2017 (UTC). That is, my original post on this IP block was today, here. And it was addressed to the individual making the block. What is your surpassing interest in the matter? Order of edits returned to chronological, for clarity of understanding of followup editors. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh... --NeilN talk to me 05:03, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If administrators are to perform their services in support of the encyclopedia, and of editors, you are doing neither. Please recuse yourself, if you cannot participate in a fair-minded way. From start (deletion of this Talk session) to finish ("sigh"), you have contributed nothing to the clarity of this matter, or to understanding. I will ask other admins to look in. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:11, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...the matter of disruptive editing (to which you, @Ivanvector: refer) has been discussed, leading you your blocking a particular IP address. I always identify myself, and there is no question of sockpuppeting. Hence, it is unclear on what policies or basis that this decision has been taken (and with what administrative authority). Please see my user page for who I am. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:27, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leprof 7272 Please read WP:NOBAN. You edited Ivanvector's userpage. This is normally frowned upon. NeilN transferred the section to the proper place (Ivanvector's user *talk* page). As for the IP block, please read Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Leprof 7272 and tag bombing. Ivanvector did a nice job explaining it all on your own talk. In a nutshell, you've ignored the multiple warnings you've received not to edit logged in and out on the same page. As a result, your IP has been blocked to prevent this. What else is there to explain? Sro23 (talk) 05:19, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sro23:I now understand, based on your description, what I did wrong at Ivanvector's User page, and it was inadvertent. (I know not to edit other individual's User pages.) Thank you for clarifying this, in one message. I never would have gotten this from NeilN's "Moved from your user page.", because of the ambiguity of the "your", and my perceiving that he was communicating to me. (I had thought this Talk page was, in the first place, where I had placed this inquiry.) Thank you for taking the time and words to sort this with me. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 09:10, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sro23: I have just found and finished replying to the Noticeboard matter. I will not have time for several days to catch up with my User Talk. A link to my reply to the matter follows. We can consider this discussion closed here; I simply was unaware of the whole situation, NeilN declined to point me to the Noticeboard despite repeated queries for clarification, and so I searched it out otherwise. (I did not see it at my User Talk page, and will not, because I strictly limit the time I spend there, because of longstanding clear evidence that it is the single venue wherein most time is wasted, subtracting from time that could be spent creating or improving content. I will look to that section, during the week of 6 May, likely on Tue-Wed when I am home and caught up.) Here is the link to my reply to the Noticeboard charges and decision. Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 08:56, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector: @NeilN: My ignorance is lifted, see preceding message this thread, so there is no need for any further response. See the link to my reply to the Noticeboard charges and decision. Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 08:56, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your preceding message displays a lot of self-justification and not a lot of understanding of the matter. I'm still not sure you understand you posted to Ivanvector's user page or what my edit summary of "I copied your post to the TALK page" means. --NeilN talk to me 09:03, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@NeilN: See my thanks above, to Sro23, for making clear my inadvertant initial posting to Ivanvector's actual User page. I've re-read all your entries, here and at your Talk page, and still, in retrospect, could not have gotten from you, the clarity that Sro23 managed. In particular, your first greeting-free message (no name of whom you were addressing) was adjacent mine, but intended to address Ivanvector. Given that juxtaposition, your use of "your" led me to read your message as addressing me (i.e., "your" as "Le Prof's"). Hence your statement did not initially, and continued not to make any sense to me. This reading and interpretation—my seeing your post as a statement to me—should also make clear why I kept moving it chronologically after mine... Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 09:10, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I placed my message above yours, and not as a reply, as you insisted on changing to twice. Having "Moved from your user page" as the first post in a section makes it pretty clear who the post is addressed to. And please stop changing your "preceding message". --NeilN talk to me 09:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@NeilN: I changed my 08:56 message, because I wrote it before I understood Sro23's meaning, and to have left it would have simply been confusing to Ivanvector and Sro23 and the thread in general. (No other deviousness or maliciousness, whatever you might think.) Again, I have acknowledged and given clear basis for the misunderstanding between us. Can you not acknowledge that you played a part, both initially, and thereafter in declining to try to understand, and alleviate, my confusion? You are an administrator, after all. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 09:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Leprof 7272: "I copied your post to the TALK page" seems pretty clear. These misunderstandings seem to form a pattern of behavior on your part. --NeilN talk to me 09:51, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Leprof 7272, how did you not know that comments go on user talk pages instead of user pages after being here for, what, three years? Anyway, if you wish to appeal the topic ban, write a concise appeal and place it at AN. Writing longwinded text walls elsewhere is the wrong move. We're all volunteers here and our time is precious. Condensing your thoughts is just plain polite. El_C 09:29, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: If you read what I wrote above, at 09:10 (deeply indented), you will see I have addressed the matter of posting on the User page, and your incredulity is misplaced. Otherwise, I have no desire or intention of appealing the topic ban. And as for your Wall of Text argument, a defense is always as long as the accusations, and mine is no longer. You are likely unschooled in law, and about arguments that typically take place in the process of accusation and rebuttal, but it is untoward to suggest that an accused not be given the chance to fully respond to charges leveled. I did no more, or no less, and it is not of great concern to me that people here are inclined to be unwilling to read a page of reasoning and argument. Otherwise, I just say, Je n'ai fait celle-ci plus longue que parce que je n'ai pas eu le loisir de la faire plus courte. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 09:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How is my "incredulity" misplaced? You've been here for three years, and suddenly, you make that mistake(?), and even revert it(!). I, in fact, did read it in full and found it unnecessarily longwinded and, frankly, self-gratifying. El_C 10:06, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You choose to impugn motive, and believe the worst, based on presuppositions about what passing time spent here means. So be it. There is nothing to be argued, and I cannot reply to insults in kind. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 23:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: The foregoing was all so much misunderstanding, which, as far as I am concerned can be collapsed of deleted. But do see my reply to the Noticeboard charges and decision. And note, that any editing that I have done, of late, prior to my entres above, were done in ignorance of the Noticeboard action. As I say above, I simple spend almost zero time at my Talk page. Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 09:48, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leprof 7272, can you not see the utter absurdity of placing endless and repeated posts on other people's talkpages, while completely ignoring the posts you receive on your own talk page? A very large part of Wikipedia participation involves abiding by community standards and heeding talkpage notices. When, over a period of three years, you repeatedly disregard notices on your talk page about Wikipedia policies and guidelines and norms, you end up with sanctions. If you then still fail to read and comprehend the messages on your own talk page, especially those posted by administrators, you begin to fall afoul of Wikipedia's WP:CIR and WP:DE guidelines, and risk being blocked from editing for an indefinite length of time. A word to the wise there: Learn to cooperate and abide by Wikipedia's norms and guidelines, or your stay here may be involuntarily truncated. Softlavender (talk) 10:53, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is no absurdity whatsoever, in reaching out to people in the manner they are best reached. Every professional has annotations on their client/colleague vcards which say "never email" or "best by Slack" or "text before calling". That I can recognise others that use their WP Talk as a regular social venue, and are there daily, while not doing so myself—though this has led, operationally, to my having missed the opening and closing of the ANI, it is clear not an irrational construct. Otherwise, I renew, at your Talk page, the invitation to explain your ire. Not your studied concern, or your principled objections to the mistakes I have made—some of which I admit to—but your anger/ire. Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 23:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Enaya Afzal

Recent block; see also User:Enaya Afzal Siddiqui? Thanks. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 14:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not know if both accounts had been blocked as I could not see anything on the TP or userpage for the secondary (which is also not colour-compliant). Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 14:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see the problem. Fixed. Thanks. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Case status

Hi. Please use "hold" rather than "onhold". Apparently, the template recognizes "onhold", even though it doesn't list it as a possible parameter, but the bot that does the case overview does not. Thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 14:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. I saw the "unkown" in the list and started thinking about how to fix that but then OMIGOD A SQUIRREL Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Soon-to-be closed SPI case

Hi Ivanvector- just seeking clarification. Should I have opened a separate case here? I wasn't intentionally trying to link Vjm to the StylesClash case, but I noticed some weird connections (as detailed in the section "Unrelated SPI case?"), so I sought input from users familiar w/ Vjm at my talk page before submitting evidence. Another user encouraged me to reopen the StylesClash case rather than opening a new one. Levdr1lp / talk 14:41, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Normally if you're adding an investigation to an already-opened case, then you're asking to investigate a user's connection to an already-confirmed sockpuppeteer, StylesClash18 in this case. The basis of your request appears to be that all of the listed editors edit disruptively in WWE-related articles, which is true, and given that one of them is a previously-confirmed sockpuppeteer your request was well-founded. However none of us have access to Checkuser technical data, and when those findings were included the evidence pointed to a different result. You could have started a new case with Vhmljds as the master and SethAdam99 plus the IPs as alleged sockpuppets, but I think we would have ended up at the same outcome, and wouldn't have identified CerebralAssassin16 as a StylesClash18 sock. So no, you didn't do anything wrong here. If you do observe any other editing which suggests Vhmljds editing through alternate accounts in violation of their block, I would suggest opening a new case under Vhmljds' name and referring to this one as background, and a clerk may merge the reports if something comes up. Thanks. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:03, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2017).

Administrator changes

added Karanacs • Berean Hunter • GoldenRing • Dlohcierekim
removed Gdr • Tyrenius • JYolkowski • Longhair • Master Thief Garrett • Aaron Brenneman • Laser brain • JzG • Dragons flight

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

  • Following an RfC, the editing restrictions page is now split into a list of active restrictions and an archive of those that are old or on inactive accounts. Make sure to check both pages if searching for a restriction.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am clueless as to your ire

...at my Talk page. I have real work and real professional responsibilities. I am responding to this as fat as I can. Please, keep Jytdog off my page, and have others respect the "in use" banner until I can make it thorugh all that others have said. You all have had days on this. It is all news to me, as of discovering the IP block. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:08, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see also here. I presume I have the freedom to delete his insult at my Talk page. Jytdog routinely deletes user additions, as have most others I know, and so I have done so in the past. If not, revert it please. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:49, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Leprof 7272: yes, those remarks are clearly inappropriate and I've warned the user. The usual accepted approach to removing personal attacks is to replace the entire offending comment (excepting the user's signature) with {{rpa}}, which produces the text (Personal attack removed). I've replied to your question regarding the permanency of the ban below where you asked, and I'll respect your request to leave the page alone for a bit. I'm going to be away from the computer for a bit anyway. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Two stray points. My lack of ability to conclude you were an admin led to some confusion about who was doing what with the ban/block. If there is a way to make this more front and center on your User page—one of the little boxes that discloses such, or a simple statement near the top—in retrospect, it would have helped. Second, if there is a way in which an email can be sent to you, please call that to my attention. I am near end, at the extent to which I can discuss matters here. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 23:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is a "topicon" on my page which indicates that I am an administrator, but you're right that I could make this more clear. I'll consider expediting this. You can email me by clicking on the "email this user" link in the menu to the left. Note that you have to have your own email enabled for this to work. See Special:Preferences if you haven't. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ivanvector&oldid=778410533"