User talk:Ivanvector

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

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)

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)

Hi Adam-Yourist. The page is semi-protected because of a persistent disruptive user creating many accounts to edit the page, which is against our multiple accounts policy. As long as you're not going to try to make the same edits as that user, you are able to edit the article yourself even though it is currently protected. If you need help, you can ask on the article's talk page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:13, 10 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 only 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)

@109.79.65.37: Sorry for the inconvenience. I think you already figured it out but I semi-protected the article for 2 days to stifle further edit-warring. You can propose changes on the talk page in the meantime, and you can use {{edit semiprotected}} to get the attention of users who can edit the article while it is protected. If disruptive editing continues after protection expires then another admin may try something else, like pending changes or blocking the users involved. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:11, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

The other user is belatedly making an effort to discuss. Thanks. -- 109.78.209.246 (talk) 22:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello.

I see that you archived a discussion on the Kamala Harris talk page after only a single retort. Wikipedia has a lot of pages on procedure, so I don't really know where to look for an explanation. I think it polite to at least wait 24 hours before doing such a thing. But more than that it seems like the point of a talk page is discussion among many editors. Anyway, I made a copy after replying so that others could contribute to the conversation, but I don't really know how these things work. It seems that every time I "Be bold," people are very, very rude to me (in fact, outside of articles, Wikipedia feels very toxic compared to, IDK 15 years ago). So anyway, I wanted to give you a heads up and maybe learn a few things from you. Thanks.--2604:2D80:DE13:6300:BC82:F2F:2F93:E82E (talk) 14:33, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

My apologies. I archived many discussions on the page this morning which were of the form of insisting that her ethnicity is something else than what is described in the article, most of which had a single reply in the form "please read the FAQ", the FAQ having been written specifically to answer this one repetitive question that has already been answered. I see you've seen the FAQ already. Un-archiving an archived thread is fine too if you feel it was archived too early, and it does seem I made a mistake there. You shouldn't ever edit an archive, they're supposed to be a static record of completed discussions. Adding comments to an archive misrepresents the discussion, and also probably nobody will ever see your comment because most editors don't watch talk page archives. Since you already restored the thread on the talk page and added your comment there, I removed all of it from the archive. Someone else will re-archive the discussion when it naturally concludes. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:39, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for blocking 2607:fea8:2d20:10ce::/64 !

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 01:05, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking

Hi Ivanvector. Many thanks for putting the block on U1Quattro, it will make for a much better experience when editing various automotive articles. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 07:44, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Block of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/95.103.231.0

"Block evasion, as before", you wrote - I assume you believe that the IP above is a sock of Brockhold. The blocked IP is from Bratislava, and two IPs from Bratislava have now tag-team edited Der Stürmer (where the blocked IP also edited), 195.91.48.221 and 95.102.240.38.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:53, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Personal attacks by User:EEng at Talk:Kamala Harris. Thank you. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 23:40, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi! Might you please help me, as an admin, with misleading and bias in Wiki?

To make a long story short, I tried to edit the page related to 'hate group' multiple time to make it more diverse & sources-conforming, but all the time moderators or another 'watchers' undid it to one previous version represented only selected by someone narrative that does not even stay in line with today's point of an authors research center. As a person who doesn't like the use of only one side of a complex problem, I can't stay with it but now try to solve the problem within Wiki, not within media and related public instruments.

More longer: Does today's English Wikipedia provides support for biased views and only selected forms of hate? > Welcomes everybody to the discussion below 'Hate group' paper. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hate_group#Our_#Wikipedia_is_not_one's_Political_Instrument. Summary: today's version looks misleading, American-centrist (nothing mention phenomena of hate outside the USA and Southern Poverty Law Center) and moderators looks American chauvinist and supporting only nazi's or related old white supremacy symbols or flags, whereas even the major domain research center, SPLC as mentioned before, shows that have is more inclusive and diverse (in a negative way of this concepts). Moreover, the previous article authors misleading at FBI official state quotation to hate crimes to prove their own view. Hatred is not American or other today's rich country movements privilege, it has no borders or faces. Only people who do hate have these signs of division. And hate definitely has not only black/brown/multiracial/white/WASP/yellow or whatever you 'Americans' like to use to divisive yourself.

>> My heart is bleeding from English Wikipedia Censorship. I participated in the Wiki community of 3 languages (one from the beginning) for 10 years, but never saw this before. My ancestors, who were imprisoned to labor and concentration camps because of their nationality, ethnicity, and views, also would not approve your totalitarian informational policy of global source for the sake of polarization and mobilization of the population within one country before their local elections.

>> * Before: https://imgur.com/esXx8ja (misleading symbols with no sources, strange position of moderators that hate have the face and that is the only one (needed?) face)

>> * After: https://imgur.com/UrYMQQ0 (paraphrase misleading definition and unreasonable but conscious incorrect FBI citations, flags, and emblems with a source from a major source all other article formulated on)

>> * Letter about Wiki unjustice: https://imgur.com/IyeRmex — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:9E01:740:A4A5:22F0:4853:5FB3 (talk) 06:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

This editor has posted the same, or virtually the same, message to 7 administrators' talk pages and to a number of other talk pages. They have received answers at at least two of those pages (I have better things to do with my time than check every one of them, so it may be more than two) and have been directed to Talk:Hate group. JBW (talk) 21:18, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

John from Idegon

Just a head's up, I have unblocked John from Idegon after I saw a reasonable and apologetic unblock request, and emerging consensus that it was acceptable. See User talk:John from Idegon#Unblock request Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:04, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Do whatever the hell you want, Ritchie333, you're obviously going to anyway. I'm sure you could have guessed how I, a long term SPI clerk and checkuser, feel about you unblocking an editor who was openly evading my block, especially one who's evidently a friend of yours, and not bothering to mention it to me until it was already done. I don't have any problem with John being unblocked, but the way you went about it is bullshit. Consensus my ass. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:58, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I can assure you the principal reason for the unblock is to give allowance for the strain the COVID-19 pandemic is having on people's mental health. I have seen people moved to suicide over it, and hence I can show empathy for a bit of sniping, both on John's original comments, and yours above. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You might want to consider how personally you are taking Wikipedia, Ivan. Wikipedia blocked me (with plenty of cause for a week, not an indeff); you only pushed a button. You yourself are not the job you do here. Internalizing like that is both hard on your health, and leads to bad decision making. I'm not upset with at all. I had something coming to me when you blocked me; I have issue with the duration and your haste in doing it, but both those things are within your discretion and I hold no malice. I find your attitude in the above comment quite troubling. Frankly, you've insinuated that I was block evading to spite you, and that is quite insulting. Children do things out of spite, and although I have many faults, being childish isn't one of them. Life is extremely stressful for everyone, everywhere right now. Perhaps you need to give yourself a break, so perhaps you'll better understand when others need one. I spent 25 years in the hotel business, the first five as a line employee. Most of that 5 years was as a night auditor, back before cash registers were computerized. When you spend 8 hours a day fixing mistakes, if you're not careful, everything starts to look like a mistake. That's the same reason cops have high suicide and divorce rates - when you spend every day dealing with garbage, the world starts to look like garbage. You spend a bunch of time mired under Wikipedia ugliness. Maybe you need a day at the beach, or whatever your local regulations will allow right now. We live in scary times. But the roses still bloomed this summer in Oregon. Do with this as you wish. It is sincerely meant. Be well. John from Idegon (talk) 10:11, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: thanks for your note, John. I'm glad to see you back, sincerely. Had I seen your unblock request earlier I would have accepted myself, but I have been keeping distance from Wikipedia lately just because I have other things to work on. My comment on block evasion was not directed at you (none of it was really): Ritchie and I at least seem to agree that blocks just for block evasion are pointlessly punitive, and I would not have opposed your unblock on solely that basis. However, he and I have some history here which leads me to believe he knew what he was doing by unblocking you without so much as notifying me about the discussion, and now you see he's off using the flimsy excuse of my expected negative reaction to rally the troops calling for my head. I'm genuinely sorry you've been caught in the middle of that.

I assure you I have no issue with you, and hope that the recent wave of drama doesn't unreasonably sour your enjoyment of Wikipedia. If I can do anything else to help please feel free to ask. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

"However, he and I have some history here..." The only history I can remember is positive, not least at your RfA, when I said, "It's good to have a candidate who can do a bit of everything; so I'm happy that someone suitable has stepped up to the plate. In particular, I have criticised our sockpuppetry policies and processes in the past, so for me to put forward someone who takes a particular interest in this area should be taken as a ringing endorsement of his abilities." I don't think my view has particularly changed on that. I was just curious to read your completely out of character rant and wondered if it was something anyone else thought was below the belt, or whether I had simply brought the whole thing on myself. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'm not sure what this history is, but IMO whether you have history is irrelevant. As an experienced admin you should already know that we're supposed to contact the blocking administrator prior to overturning a block, which is not only a basic courtesy and a firmly-established norm, but a stipulation of blocking policy. Unblocking without doing so and instead leaving a "heads up" that you have already done so is likely to come across as a passive-aggressive slap in the face to most people. If you're perceived as being a "friend" of the editor you're unblocking, and the blocking admin feels (correctly or not) that there is bad-blood between you, that would only serve to make the situation way worse. It's not exactly some earth-shattering surprise that someone would be pissed off. Whether this was a calculated move in good faith, or a simple oversight in good faith, the response is a simple apology with an explanation. Instead your comments, show no acknowledgment of any of this, and instead you're citing your empathy for mental health, invoking the specter of suicide, quoting your praise for the person, calling their behavior "out of character", and discussing them on the talk page of the blocked user without pinging them, and then claiming you're doing so to protect them? If the unblock was not meant to be passive-aggressive, good lord, everything you're doing since then is making it look so much worse. I can't speak for Ivan and I have no idea what the underlying context beneath the surface is, but even just at face value this is a poor show. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 19:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

The policy says "administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator". "should avoid" is not "must always". If you're upset John's unblocked, go and indef block him. Otherwise, find an article to improve. In either case, this discussion is just noise now. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)