Trout this user

User talk:Ivanvector

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


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[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg 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.

--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 Ponyobons mots 20:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Topic ban violation[edit]

Hi Ivanvector. You blocked A. Katechis Mpourtoulis for topic ban violation regarding the Balkans. They are again editing the same pages [1]. Since it is a topic ban violation, not disruptive editing or socking, I do not know what excatly should be done in this case. Can you have a look at it? Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:46, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

@Ktrimi991: thanks for the report. I have blocked the user again and again I've tried to explain that their topic ban includes the topics they've continued to edit. I'll leave it to you to determine if their edits should be reverted: technically you are permitted to revert per WP:BANREVERT but you can use your discretion. If this happens again it will probably be faster to report this to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. I do not have expertise in the articles Katechis edited, and can not give a honest evaluation of the quality of his edits. Some of them have already been reverted by other editors, and I am leaving the rest as they are. I had a look at the AE page and saw that in every report there is a part that says "Sanction or remedy to be enforced". What should I write in that part if I report an editor about behaviour/edits concerning the Balkans? Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
You can write something like "WP:ARBMAC topic ban [2]". Be sure to include the permalink. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Ivanvector. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

How can the Interaction Timeline be useful in reporting to noticeboards?[edit]

Hi Ivanvector,

The Anti-Harassment Tools team built the Interaction Timeline to make it easier to understand how two people interact and converse across multiple pages on a wiki. The tool shows a chronological list of edits made by two users, only on pages where they have both made edits within the provided time range. Our goals are to assist users to make well informed decisions in incidents of user misconduct and to keep on-wiki discussions civil and focused on evidence.

We're looking to add a feature to the Interaction Timeline that makes it easy to post statistics and information to an on-wiki discussion about user misconduct. We're discussing possible wikitext output on the project talk page, and we invite you to participate! Thank you, For the Anti-Harassment Tools team, SPoore (WMF), Trust & Safety, Community health initiative (talk) 22:24, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

My old template[edit]

I am fine with its deletion now. I put on a db-author. Bearian (talk) 23:59, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

No consensus pagemove[edit]

Hi Ivanvector

When time permits, can you revert a pagemove of a article talkpage. Its the Gjon Kastrioti article. User:Xhfgsepfiuh unilaterally moved the page to "Ivan Kastriot" and that was reverted, however the talkpage still has the name Ivan Kastriot [3]. There was no consensus for the change of either the main page or talkpage by @Xhfgsepfiuh, yet alone a proper pagemove process in the talkpage [4]. Best.Resnjari (talk) 01:51, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd suggest you to restrain yourself from hasty moves until the matter is properly resolved.[5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xhfgsepfiuh (talkcontribs) 11:43, 24 June 2018 (UTC) Xhfgsepfiuh (talk) 11:50, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
@Xhfgsepfiuh:, your pagemoves were undone. There was no consensus.Resnjari (talk) 06:34, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FreeatlastChitchat[edit]

Hey, if possible, would you do me a favor and e-mail me the "differences in technical data" you referred to? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:42, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Emailed. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:21, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Spurious SPIs[edit]

I have been observing a rampage of most spurious SPIs recently created in retaliation by someone but being filed by someone else. Where do you think this issue can be addressed? Lorstaking (talk) 05:30, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I will like to make an observation, and agree but only to the extent that I have seen. This diff (and the format/style of the SPI preceding it) in particular evokes curiosity. Who is "we"? Mar4d (talk) 06:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Your above edit is not only unhelpful but it's also a gross violation of your topic ban. Don't reply to this thread and stay out of this matter entirely and don't forget that this same kind of disruption got you topic banned. Lorstaking (talk) 07:17, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Pot, meet kettle. The place we tried to address this was arbitration enforcement, and that's been a circus. To be blunt, I don't care. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:52, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Opinion polling Pakistani election 2018[edit]

There is a deliberate attempt to show the page in favour of a particular party. See history most of them deserve 3R ban. Jawadmdr (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: - please review Jawadmdr's disruptive activity on the Opinion Polling page. He is consistently reverting the lead to his partisan version while 3 separate editors, including myself, have reverted his edits in the past 24 hrs. - Wiki.0hlic (talk) 09:12, 15 July 2018 (UTC)