![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
I was disappointed to see the comment about the outcome of the sock puppet investigation. Let me explain myself. I inadvertently created a new account (JohnGT) forgetting that I was already registered as JGTolhurst. I have been involved for some time in trying to correct some errors in reporting that were made by the Fly Navy Heritage Trust and Navy PR in reporting the story of Jock Moffat. These also occur in the Wikipedia entry for Jock Moffat. In attempting to edit the entry I had no intention of undermining the character of this brave aviator nor of upsetting his family after his death. My concern was and remains to ensure that the facts that emerged following the dive on the wreck of the BISMARCK are correctly reported. A definitive account was prepared by Graham Mottram, the then curator of the Fleet Air Arm Museum, and endorsed by the Head of the Royal Navy's Historical Branch. This clearly stated that the torpedo which crippled the ship had been fired from her starboard side and could not, therefore have been dropped by Moffat who attacked from the port side. That in no way diminishes the respect we should have for the courage of all those who took part in the strike. It would, however, be a shame if Wikipedia continues to ignore the facts and perpetuates an incorrect version of events. JGTolhurst ( talk) 11:43, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi Ivanvector. My turn to apologise for a late response. Thank you for your advice which I fully understand. I shall not again be using the account that gave rise to the sock puppetry allegation! I am not aware of Mottram's findings having been published but I will investigate. I must correct you on one point, however. The comment about Lord Boyce did not come from me. JGTolhurst ( talk) 15:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Would you or one of your stalkers mind taking a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gaption. I included an additional bracket here and it eff'd up Twinkle. Thought I fixed it, but the header for the named master isn't showing up. TonyBallioni ( talk) 00:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Quick procedural question. How do we deal with duplicate cases at SPI? I've come across two of them today. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Article Creator Editor and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Article Creator Editor. Thanks. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 17:51, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:PolitiFact. Legobot ( talk) 04:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello,
The Interaction Timeline alpha version is ready for testing. The Anti-Harassment Tools team appreciates you spending a few minutes to try out the tool and let us know if there is value in displaying the interactions in a vertical timeline instead of the approach used with the existing interaction analysis tools.
Also we interested in learning about which additional functionality or information we should prioritize developing.
Comments can be left on the discussion page here or on meta. Or you can share your ideas by email.
Thank you,
For the Anti-Harassment Tools Team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative ( talk) 20:59, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Can you please give me a good reason why i am getting a lot of warnings if i am giving a true fact?
ZLL123 ( talk) 18:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Could you see to a few merges that Sir Sputnik has requested at SPI? They're marked admin attention needed, but only an admin clerk can handle them. ~ Rob13 Talk 15:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi, VJ-Yugo again. [1] Ktrimi991 ( talk) 19:05, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
I would like to draw your attention to the de-redirecting that TakuyaMurata did for which there was a MFD on a Draft space project that constituted the majority of the content that was part of this. Based on the fact that they are also under a Topic Ban related to their Draft space creations, I am appealing to you as the editor and administrator who created the redirect. I also request the advice of Primefac as the administrator who imposed the Topic Ban and who also imposed the deletion of the content at MFD. Hasteur ( talk) 02:30, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello Ivanvector,
I'm not familiar with the case above, but the nonstandard formatting there is causing it to appear in the list of malformed cases. Are there supposed to be two separate cases, 123Aristotle and Ren Yifan, or is this an incomplete case rename? Thanks — DoRD ( talk) 20:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
LOL. When I first saw "#Statement by Ivanvector (MisterWiki)", I thought to myself "What?! Ivanvector is admitting he's the guy behind MisterWiki?! No way!" Imagine my relief (and tiny bit of disappointment) when it dawned on me what you actually meant. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 15:04, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for moving your comment BTW—I'm glad you're OK with it, but I should've asked first (especially since I just recommended that someone refrain from making contributions on others' behalf!). I felt that the new categories that were added used pretty heavily biased language, so I made some edits to make them a little less POV, and I thought your vote fit better in the other category. dragfyre_ ʞןɐʇ c 21:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Can you handle the clerk stuff here? It's old enough on the list that I suspect it will be overlooked if I don't prod someone in its direction. (And no action was a perfectly valid outcome for that SPI I pinged you to, by the way. I just wanted some outcome at that point.) ~ Rob13 Talk 00:58, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi, last week you blocked the IPv6 address beginning with 2603:300B:E01:BF00 for repeated disruptive editing of Talk:February 29. The block has now expired and the IPv6 user is back making the same disruptive editing to the same page. Could you please put another, longer, ban in place? Thanks. -- Marbe166 ( talk) 18:57, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
I think what you did will serve the purpose. Readers will now know which Gaurav Sharma is which. Thanks so much -- Bond111 ( talk) 15:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
If I have this right, a registered editor is editing while logged out? So posting a request for him to log in, on the talk page of the IP account, using some identifying info about either his registerred account or him personally is 'ok'...? - theWOLFchild 16:53, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2017).
Hello, I recently updated some editions about Gulf company and some other editions, but some accounts was blocked by a sock puppets of consumersdistributingonline. I don't have any links with this account and I just want to edit with my best of possible, when we see edits of that account, we can see clearly that's them who want to relaunch the company that has this account. I often tried to keep an account for a long period but it was eventually blocked. If I edit on Consumers Distributing it's not to promote personally this. I know that someone try to relaunch the company and I tried to edit the best information possible. Also, I can tell you that I ever speak with him personally at phone and it's really hard to know something of concrete from him about the relaunch. I would want that this relaunch of the company works, I don't know what's happening now but I try to stay informed by consulting the website and others research on the web. I discovered the investigation page of consumersdistributingonline and when we see that, it really has no sense. When I have another account, it's because I forgot my password and it's in the suggestions of Wikipedia to open another account. I want soon doing some other changes on Gulf, and it's very good edits.
Also, please don't revert my edits because it's really not vandalism that I do. I improve articles and correct errors. If I edit in the future, I would like to don't be blocked. Thank you. (I just discovered from now how we can write a message to administrators and I will try to contact you other times, and you can block the account Santa Claude, I ever forgot the password for that account and I opened that by error and will not be useful) Bennyco ( talk) 18:37, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Ivanvector. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I have a small issue with a page that I modified titled "Caroline Danjuma" it has incorrect information according to the person to which the article is about. However I edited it but it was reverted by a [ Darreg]. I reached out to him so he understands that his article (created without the permission of Caroline) is incorrect but he insists that it should not be edited. Please advice — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geebee2703 ( talk • contribs) 23:17, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
info-en-q@wikimedia.org
.
Ivanvector (
Talk/
Edits)
01:20, 2 December 2017 (UTC)May I ask why you reverted my edit? nagual design 15:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of historical and fictional birds. Since you had some involvement with the List of historical and fictional birds redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 03:10, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
I just happened to see
your edit at ANI, in which you supplied diffs, some of which involved me, and also made the comment There comes a point where two (or three) editors who just can't get along should be prevented from doing so, for everyone else's sake.
I understand the part about the diffs, since they also involved
Icewhiz and the OP of the recent ANI report. But the allusion to three editors was unwarranted. I had nothing to do with that report, and I have not interacted with that person for quite a while. This is no coincidence. So I would greatly appreciate if you just counted me out of the non-existing "three editors". Thanks.
Dr.
K.
17:40, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
The only thing to do here is to discuss the content on the article's talk page. I'm not about to block someone for having an opinion. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 13:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi the problem is the contributor refuses to go in talk page and continues to inpose his point of view. What is the solution ? -- Panam2014 ( talk) 17:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
What is the solution now ? -- Panam2014 ( talk) 10:47, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi We (me and CC) have broken any rule. We did not violate the "1RR" since it happened on WM Commmons and not on en.wiki. -- Panam2014 ( talk) 14:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi Ivanvector, after you reverted a blocked sock of VJ-Yugo, this new account emerged and reverted you with usual reasoning of Vj-Yugo that is "unreliable source" thing. The account is new and I do not know if I should open a SPI after two edits. Would you mind keeping an eye on them? Cheers, Ktrimi991 ( talk) 19:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
I first read this article today and realized that much of some paragraphs had been copied from a book. I deleted all of that over the past three hours and replaced it with factual content, now fully cited with sources such as MIT and obituaries published by major news media.
I will check it again, but I believe the article is now fine, or close to that. (This is particularly important today, since many people are likely to read the article.
This is why: Har Gobind Khorana deciphered DNA and wrote the dictionary for our genetic language. Tuesday’s Google Doodle honors the pioneering biochemist and Nobel Laureate. https://www.vox.com/2018/1/9/16862980/google-doodle-har-gobind-khorana-genetics-dna
I don't know if Har Gobind Khorana needs to be semi protected.
There did seem to be some debate about Pakistan vs. India but I did not read those discussions on the Talk page. Peter K Burian ( talk) 18:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Ivanvector Did you approve Coffee's keeping this list on her talk page? [3] The title for the section says "Evidence of editor behavior against community standards - this holding area has been permitted by an uninvolved administrator" - I understood your comment to mean that a subpage was ok, but that an editor "should generally not maintain in public view" such a list. Seraphim System ( talk) 00:37, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
then the only choices they have is to accept it or to leave the community- I can tell you that I feel differently about that statement, or at least how it has been used in context here. Think about what you are actually saying there, please. MPS1992 ( talk) 21:05, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi, after you reverted Provrachka, AnnaKomnene emerged. The same situation, I am not sure if I should SPI an account with one edit. Ktrimi991 ( talk) 20:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
Thirsty work. Cheers! >SerialNumber 54129 ...speculates 16:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC) |
FYI... I have requested semi-protection for this page. EncyclopediaUpdaticus ( talk) 14:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Hey Ivanvector! Hope you're well. I had question for you regarding my draft submission of Datari Turner at AfC. Is it possible to remove the big red box that says 'submission declined' since it was done by mistake? All good if not, was just curious about it. Thanks. JacobPace ( talk) 16:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2018).
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Coachella Valley Church. Legobot ( talk) 04:31, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi Ivan, I've left a few messages for you on my talk page. I probably messed up the ping, as usual. nagual design 21:54, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
I have posted additional evidence on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xinjao. Kindly check. Lorstaking ( talk) 02:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Will you take a look at the user page of NeilEvans and notice the percentage of articles he's created that became redirects? I counted 35 listed + 7 that became articles. I came across this user during my NPP rounds and found another that's up at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Enforcer_(Hercules:_The_Legendary_Journeys) His TP and Archive aren't too encouraging, either. Any suggestions? Atsme 📞 📧 18:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
The guy starts editing like a pro on Nov 22 with detailed edit summaries and wikilingo [5]He moves into warning other users within a few daya and the assessing article class soon after that. He's a blocked or banned user under a new name and he's being pretty disruptive with his trolling. Legacypac ( talk) 19:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
hi Also i added this article [6] in Arabic Wikipedia, simply i added some external links about Rakia, as heritage AS NATIONAL DRINK, as i discovered in "THE CULTURAL TOURIST'S EXPERIENCE"; so please take it easy, and re_add my external link, it doesn't have any relation with advertising or promotion as you said, i'am free man, independent, i'm cosmopolitan..i write what i like, that's it, so please im suffering with incitement and exclusion in Arabic Wikipedia, so take it easy please.. i'm just modest blogger, in Wikimedia i contribute mainly in Arabic Wikipedia... re-add it please. thanks -- محمد بوعلام عصامي *«Simo.Boualam» ( talk) 00:53, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Can you please revoke talk page access of this 216.221.38.221 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS)? Has been going on making vile personal attacks in the talk page after it was blocked. — IB [ Poke ] 11:07, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2018).
contains_all
that edit filter managers may use to check if one or more strings are all contained in another given string.I am grateful for your kind vote of support at my WP:AN#Topic ban appeal. It is much appreciated alongside the mention of WP:LASTCHANCE. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 01:54, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello sir, This is Mehekshaikh. I am manager of Indian actor Rohit KaduDeshmukh. There were many mis creations of the article about which one of his fan informed us on our email. Hence I came up to look into the matter that whether anyone is creating wrong article about Rohit sir with defamatory content. But just now I found of that there is an article creation block on the article Rohit KaduDeshmukh. So you being a reputed administrator on Wikipedia I came to your talk page to seek help. We will be very thankful and glad if you help us removing the recreation block from the article. So that we can create a proper draft of the article and then apply for submission. Awaiting your response in affirmation. Thank you! Mehekshaikh ( talk) 07:36, 3 March 2018 (UTC)Mehekshaikh Mehekshaikh ( talk) 07:36, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Looks like Teambk has recreated 2018_Singapore_Community_Shield that was deleted because we already have Singapore Community Shield. Atsme 📞 📧 10:58, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi Ivanvector, and thanks for adding protection on The Tempest.
But since you set it to fully protected rather than extended confirmed, and in light of your comment on the request at RFPP, do I then take it that you view the situation as a garden variety content dispute? By my best judgement it falls squarely under vandalism: it's IPs and what looks like throwaway accounts edit-warring to remove long-stable cited content, with no attempt to communicate (nothing on the Talk page despite requests, and those edit summaries are just trolling and obfuscation, not attempts to discuss via ES). And as an added bonus I smell socking by an at least somewhat more experienced editor, and an element of trolling just as a cherry on top (nothing concrete enough to be actionable, mind). In any case, a couple of days at full protection will do little harm (it's not exactly the most frequently edited article, sadly), but I feel I need to check to calibrate my radar. `cause if it falls into the "content dispute" bucket I need to start minding my number of Rs! -- Xover ( talk) 17:07, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi Ivanvector, You recently blocked a sock of UrbanNerd. One of the articles that this user was disrupting was List of American and Canadian cities by number of major professional sports franchises. However, since UrbanNerd was indeffed, another user has arrived and continued UrbanNerd's edit war, claiming a consensus for the change based on UrbanNerd's past edit warring. Obviously the prior disruption of a banned user should have no impact on the establishment of consensus, and even if it did, two users edit warring the same change does not a consensus make. However, the editor doesn't seem to understand how consensus is established, and has a long history of being blocked for edit warring. (See discussion here.) Perhaps you could restore the long term stable version (see [7]), as it exist for four years prior to UrbanNerd's disruption, and protect, to force the user to discuss rather than edit war? TDL ( talk) 01:16, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
I saw that you reverted my edit here citing peacock, although none of the copyediting I did highlighted or promoted the subject. I think you may have interpreted my edit surrounding the funeral event and media coverage thereof as vandalism? Just looking for an explanation before I undo your revert. Outback the koala ( talk) 14:20, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi Ivanvector, the newest sock is in action [8]. This guy is so much persistent. Ktrimi991 ( talk) 22:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
The reason why I am bring up IP user 199.7.157.114 is because it feels this is the same user as IP user 199.119.224.0/20, who was suspended for three. I raise concern because when the name Hamish Marshall comes up, he gives very vague and nonsensical reasons to removing the changes I made and deletes a lot of information that is not related with the subject. Thanks 2620:22:4000:110:1FFE:99CB:B8C4:F88A ( talk) 16:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
[18] Is deleting stuff together with some other changes he tried to make four days ago. Ktrimi991 ( talk) 21:34, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
" casting aspersions about other editors' motivations and running to admin noticeboards whenever someone doesn't agree with their opinion".
There are plenty of people I disagree with at the Doug Ford article, but only one I've had issues with—Nocturnalnow even pointed that out in the ANI discussion. This comment is especially puzzling in light of the aspersions—which you know are false (I'm pushing what POV again?)—that NN has launched at me. You disagree with my position (which I hold in good faith), but I hope you could at least strike this comment. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:51, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi Ivanvector, as I searched for the model Cora Emmanuel's name on here (as I thought it's high time she had an article by now) I saw that it was deleted because there is some type of block that indefinitely prevents anyone besides admins from creating the page because of some other user's actions (never seen that before, really weird). Anyways, I came by here to ask if you could remove the block so that I could create the page myself. Looking at it for what it is, the notability aspect is definitely there for the article to be made. Thanks. Trillfendi ( talk) 19:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello. FYI Shingling's geolocation is no secret, he has even mentioned it himself, and the IP in the case leads to a provider that Shingling has used before, and a geolocation (which in the UK is the nearest NOC, usually within 20-25 miles or so of the actual location) that is only just over 15 miles southwest of their actual geolocation, so there's no doubt at all about it being him. It's not his usual IP-range, though, since his usual range has been rangeblocked... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 19:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Dear Ivan, IMHO, the discussion about Category:Descendants_of_John_Ames_(born_1647) should have been relisted in an attempt to obtain better feedback and consensus. Can you please enlighten me as to why a relisting was not in order? Please ping me when you respond. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 17:48, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
I just added Orchitaakter to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Abdullah Zubayer then noticed you'd called it as closed, though not yet done all the closing magic. I can submit a new report if it's too late. Thanks, Cabayi ( talk) 15:54, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi Ivanvector. Not sure I'm aware of the whole story with this one, but they seemed to be targeting/stalking past edits of yours. Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 20:03, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Re your question: the tag was added by DoRD, so I'd say the CU-check was made by them (to confirm "behavioural evidence"...). - Tom | Thomas.W talk 14:18, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
I was surprised to see this close which seems to say that a community ban discussion is the wrong question and that evasion is a ban(?). This admin has made similar premature closes in my experience. What do you think?- Mr X 🖋 15:18, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
The Portals WikiProject has been rebooted.
You are invited to join, and participate in the effort to revitalize and improve the Portal system and all the portals in it.
There are sections on the WikiProject page dedicated to tasks (including WikiGnome tasks too), and areas on the talk page for discussing the improvement and automation of the various features of portals.
Many complaints have been lodged in the RfC to delete all portals, pointing out their various problems. They say that many portals are not maintained, or have fallen out of date, are useless, etc. Many of the !votes indicate that the editors who posted them simply don't believe in the potential of portals anymore.
It's time to change all that. Let's give them reasons to believe in portals, by revitalizing them.
The best response to a deletion nomination is to fix the page that was nominated. The further underway the effort is to improve portals by the time the RfC has run its course, the more of the reasons against portals will no longer apply. RfCs typically run 30 days. There are 19 days left in this one. Let's see how many portals we can update and improve before the RfC is closed, and beyond.
A healthy WikiProject dedicated to supporting and maintaining portals may be the strongest argument of all not to delete.
We may even surprise ourselves and exceed all expectations. Who knows what we will be able to accomplish in what may become the biggest Wikicollaboration in years.
Let's do this.
See ya at the WikiProject!
Sincerely, —
The Transhumanist
10:21, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi Ivan! I see that you've removed the upload links to Commons on the List of national parks in Canada. Is there a specific reason for this? It would be really helpful for documentation and illustration purposes to have these links the whole year round, not only during the contest period. :-) Best, Braveheart ( talk) 10:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
I was disappointed to see the comment about the outcome of the sock puppet investigation. Let me explain myself. I inadvertently created a new account (JohnGT) forgetting that I was already registered as JGTolhurst. I have been involved for some time in trying to correct some errors in reporting that were made by the Fly Navy Heritage Trust and Navy PR in reporting the story of Jock Moffat. These also occur in the Wikipedia entry for Jock Moffat. In attempting to edit the entry I had no intention of undermining the character of this brave aviator nor of upsetting his family after his death. My concern was and remains to ensure that the facts that emerged following the dive on the wreck of the BISMARCK are correctly reported. A definitive account was prepared by Graham Mottram, the then curator of the Fleet Air Arm Museum, and endorsed by the Head of the Royal Navy's Historical Branch. This clearly stated that the torpedo which crippled the ship had been fired from her starboard side and could not, therefore have been dropped by Moffat who attacked from the port side. That in no way diminishes the respect we should have for the courage of all those who took part in the strike. It would, however, be a shame if Wikipedia continues to ignore the facts and perpetuates an incorrect version of events. JGTolhurst ( talk) 11:43, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi Ivanvector. My turn to apologise for a late response. Thank you for your advice which I fully understand. I shall not again be using the account that gave rise to the sock puppetry allegation! I am not aware of Mottram's findings having been published but I will investigate. I must correct you on one point, however. The comment about Lord Boyce did not come from me. JGTolhurst ( talk) 15:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Would you or one of your stalkers mind taking a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gaption. I included an additional bracket here and it eff'd up Twinkle. Thought I fixed it, but the header for the named master isn't showing up. TonyBallioni ( talk) 00:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Quick procedural question. How do we deal with duplicate cases at SPI? I've come across two of them today. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Article Creator Editor and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Article Creator Editor. Thanks. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 17:51, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:PolitiFact. Legobot ( talk) 04:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello,
The Interaction Timeline alpha version is ready for testing. The Anti-Harassment Tools team appreciates you spending a few minutes to try out the tool and let us know if there is value in displaying the interactions in a vertical timeline instead of the approach used with the existing interaction analysis tools.
Also we interested in learning about which additional functionality or information we should prioritize developing.
Comments can be left on the discussion page here or on meta. Or you can share your ideas by email.
Thank you,
For the Anti-Harassment Tools Team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative ( talk) 20:59, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Can you please give me a good reason why i am getting a lot of warnings if i am giving a true fact?
ZLL123 ( talk) 18:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Could you see to a few merges that Sir Sputnik has requested at SPI? They're marked admin attention needed, but only an admin clerk can handle them. ~ Rob13 Talk 15:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi, VJ-Yugo again. [1] Ktrimi991 ( talk) 19:05, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
I would like to draw your attention to the de-redirecting that TakuyaMurata did for which there was a MFD on a Draft space project that constituted the majority of the content that was part of this. Based on the fact that they are also under a Topic Ban related to their Draft space creations, I am appealing to you as the editor and administrator who created the redirect. I also request the advice of Primefac as the administrator who imposed the Topic Ban and who also imposed the deletion of the content at MFD. Hasteur ( talk) 02:30, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello Ivanvector,
I'm not familiar with the case above, but the nonstandard formatting there is causing it to appear in the list of malformed cases. Are there supposed to be two separate cases, 123Aristotle and Ren Yifan, or is this an incomplete case rename? Thanks — DoRD ( talk) 20:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
LOL. When I first saw "#Statement by Ivanvector (MisterWiki)", I thought to myself "What?! Ivanvector is admitting he's the guy behind MisterWiki?! No way!" Imagine my relief (and tiny bit of disappointment) when it dawned on me what you actually meant. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 15:04, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for moving your comment BTW—I'm glad you're OK with it, but I should've asked first (especially since I just recommended that someone refrain from making contributions on others' behalf!). I felt that the new categories that were added used pretty heavily biased language, so I made some edits to make them a little less POV, and I thought your vote fit better in the other category. dragfyre_ ʞןɐʇ c 21:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Can you handle the clerk stuff here? It's old enough on the list that I suspect it will be overlooked if I don't prod someone in its direction. (And no action was a perfectly valid outcome for that SPI I pinged you to, by the way. I just wanted some outcome at that point.) ~ Rob13 Talk 00:58, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi, last week you blocked the IPv6 address beginning with 2603:300B:E01:BF00 for repeated disruptive editing of Talk:February 29. The block has now expired and the IPv6 user is back making the same disruptive editing to the same page. Could you please put another, longer, ban in place? Thanks. -- Marbe166 ( talk) 18:57, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
I think what you did will serve the purpose. Readers will now know which Gaurav Sharma is which. Thanks so much -- Bond111 ( talk) 15:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
If I have this right, a registered editor is editing while logged out? So posting a request for him to log in, on the talk page of the IP account, using some identifying info about either his registerred account or him personally is 'ok'...? - theWOLFchild 16:53, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2017).
Hello, I recently updated some editions about Gulf company and some other editions, but some accounts was blocked by a sock puppets of consumersdistributingonline. I don't have any links with this account and I just want to edit with my best of possible, when we see edits of that account, we can see clearly that's them who want to relaunch the company that has this account. I often tried to keep an account for a long period but it was eventually blocked. If I edit on Consumers Distributing it's not to promote personally this. I know that someone try to relaunch the company and I tried to edit the best information possible. Also, I can tell you that I ever speak with him personally at phone and it's really hard to know something of concrete from him about the relaunch. I would want that this relaunch of the company works, I don't know what's happening now but I try to stay informed by consulting the website and others research on the web. I discovered the investigation page of consumersdistributingonline and when we see that, it really has no sense. When I have another account, it's because I forgot my password and it's in the suggestions of Wikipedia to open another account. I want soon doing some other changes on Gulf, and it's very good edits.
Also, please don't revert my edits because it's really not vandalism that I do. I improve articles and correct errors. If I edit in the future, I would like to don't be blocked. Thank you. (I just discovered from now how we can write a message to administrators and I will try to contact you other times, and you can block the account Santa Claude, I ever forgot the password for that account and I opened that by error and will not be useful) Bennyco ( talk) 18:37, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Ivanvector. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I have a small issue with a page that I modified titled "Caroline Danjuma" it has incorrect information according to the person to which the article is about. However I edited it but it was reverted by a [ Darreg]. I reached out to him so he understands that his article (created without the permission of Caroline) is incorrect but he insists that it should not be edited. Please advice — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geebee2703 ( talk • contribs) 23:17, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
info-en-q@wikimedia.org
.
Ivanvector (
Talk/
Edits)
01:20, 2 December 2017 (UTC)May I ask why you reverted my edit? nagual design 15:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of historical and fictional birds. Since you had some involvement with the List of historical and fictional birds redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 03:10, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
I just happened to see
your edit at ANI, in which you supplied diffs, some of which involved me, and also made the comment There comes a point where two (or three) editors who just can't get along should be prevented from doing so, for everyone else's sake.
I understand the part about the diffs, since they also involved
Icewhiz and the OP of the recent ANI report. But the allusion to three editors was unwarranted. I had nothing to do with that report, and I have not interacted with that person for quite a while. This is no coincidence. So I would greatly appreciate if you just counted me out of the non-existing "three editors". Thanks.
Dr.
K.
17:40, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
The only thing to do here is to discuss the content on the article's talk page. I'm not about to block someone for having an opinion. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 13:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi the problem is the contributor refuses to go in talk page and continues to inpose his point of view. What is the solution ? -- Panam2014 ( talk) 17:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
What is the solution now ? -- Panam2014 ( talk) 10:47, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi We (me and CC) have broken any rule. We did not violate the "1RR" since it happened on WM Commmons and not on en.wiki. -- Panam2014 ( talk) 14:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi Ivanvector, after you reverted a blocked sock of VJ-Yugo, this new account emerged and reverted you with usual reasoning of Vj-Yugo that is "unreliable source" thing. The account is new and I do not know if I should open a SPI after two edits. Would you mind keeping an eye on them? Cheers, Ktrimi991 ( talk) 19:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
I first read this article today and realized that much of some paragraphs had been copied from a book. I deleted all of that over the past three hours and replaced it with factual content, now fully cited with sources such as MIT and obituaries published by major news media.
I will check it again, but I believe the article is now fine, or close to that. (This is particularly important today, since many people are likely to read the article.
This is why: Har Gobind Khorana deciphered DNA and wrote the dictionary for our genetic language. Tuesday’s Google Doodle honors the pioneering biochemist and Nobel Laureate. https://www.vox.com/2018/1/9/16862980/google-doodle-har-gobind-khorana-genetics-dna
I don't know if Har Gobind Khorana needs to be semi protected.
There did seem to be some debate about Pakistan vs. India but I did not read those discussions on the Talk page. Peter K Burian ( talk) 18:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Ivanvector Did you approve Coffee's keeping this list on her talk page? [3] The title for the section says "Evidence of editor behavior against community standards - this holding area has been permitted by an uninvolved administrator" - I understood your comment to mean that a subpage was ok, but that an editor "should generally not maintain in public view" such a list. Seraphim System ( talk) 00:37, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
then the only choices they have is to accept it or to leave the community- I can tell you that I feel differently about that statement, or at least how it has been used in context here. Think about what you are actually saying there, please. MPS1992 ( talk) 21:05, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi, after you reverted Provrachka, AnnaKomnene emerged. The same situation, I am not sure if I should SPI an account with one edit. Ktrimi991 ( talk) 20:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
Thirsty work. Cheers! >SerialNumber 54129 ...speculates 16:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC) |
FYI... I have requested semi-protection for this page. EncyclopediaUpdaticus ( talk) 14:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Hey Ivanvector! Hope you're well. I had question for you regarding my draft submission of Datari Turner at AfC. Is it possible to remove the big red box that says 'submission declined' since it was done by mistake? All good if not, was just curious about it. Thanks. JacobPace ( talk) 16:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2018).
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Coachella Valley Church. Legobot ( talk) 04:31, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi Ivan, I've left a few messages for you on my talk page. I probably messed up the ping, as usual. nagual design 21:54, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
I have posted additional evidence on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xinjao. Kindly check. Lorstaking ( talk) 02:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Will you take a look at the user page of NeilEvans and notice the percentage of articles he's created that became redirects? I counted 35 listed + 7 that became articles. I came across this user during my NPP rounds and found another that's up at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Enforcer_(Hercules:_The_Legendary_Journeys) His TP and Archive aren't too encouraging, either. Any suggestions? Atsme 📞 📧 18:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
The guy starts editing like a pro on Nov 22 with detailed edit summaries and wikilingo [5]He moves into warning other users within a few daya and the assessing article class soon after that. He's a blocked or banned user under a new name and he's being pretty disruptive with his trolling. Legacypac ( talk) 19:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
hi Also i added this article [6] in Arabic Wikipedia, simply i added some external links about Rakia, as heritage AS NATIONAL DRINK, as i discovered in "THE CULTURAL TOURIST'S EXPERIENCE"; so please take it easy, and re_add my external link, it doesn't have any relation with advertising or promotion as you said, i'am free man, independent, i'm cosmopolitan..i write what i like, that's it, so please im suffering with incitement and exclusion in Arabic Wikipedia, so take it easy please.. i'm just modest blogger, in Wikimedia i contribute mainly in Arabic Wikipedia... re-add it please. thanks -- محمد بوعلام عصامي *«Simo.Boualam» ( talk) 00:53, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Can you please revoke talk page access of this 216.221.38.221 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS)? Has been going on making vile personal attacks in the talk page after it was blocked. — IB [ Poke ] 11:07, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2018).
contains_all
that edit filter managers may use to check if one or more strings are all contained in another given string.I am grateful for your kind vote of support at my WP:AN#Topic ban appeal. It is much appreciated alongside the mention of WP:LASTCHANCE. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 01:54, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello sir, This is Mehekshaikh. I am manager of Indian actor Rohit KaduDeshmukh. There were many mis creations of the article about which one of his fan informed us on our email. Hence I came up to look into the matter that whether anyone is creating wrong article about Rohit sir with defamatory content. But just now I found of that there is an article creation block on the article Rohit KaduDeshmukh. So you being a reputed administrator on Wikipedia I came to your talk page to seek help. We will be very thankful and glad if you help us removing the recreation block from the article. So that we can create a proper draft of the article and then apply for submission. Awaiting your response in affirmation. Thank you! Mehekshaikh ( talk) 07:36, 3 March 2018 (UTC)Mehekshaikh Mehekshaikh ( talk) 07:36, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Looks like Teambk has recreated 2018_Singapore_Community_Shield that was deleted because we already have Singapore Community Shield. Atsme 📞 📧 10:58, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi Ivanvector, and thanks for adding protection on The Tempest.
But since you set it to fully protected rather than extended confirmed, and in light of your comment on the request at RFPP, do I then take it that you view the situation as a garden variety content dispute? By my best judgement it falls squarely under vandalism: it's IPs and what looks like throwaway accounts edit-warring to remove long-stable cited content, with no attempt to communicate (nothing on the Talk page despite requests, and those edit summaries are just trolling and obfuscation, not attempts to discuss via ES). And as an added bonus I smell socking by an at least somewhat more experienced editor, and an element of trolling just as a cherry on top (nothing concrete enough to be actionable, mind). In any case, a couple of days at full protection will do little harm (it's not exactly the most frequently edited article, sadly), but I feel I need to check to calibrate my radar. `cause if it falls into the "content dispute" bucket I need to start minding my number of Rs! -- Xover ( talk) 17:07, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi Ivanvector, You recently blocked a sock of UrbanNerd. One of the articles that this user was disrupting was List of American and Canadian cities by number of major professional sports franchises. However, since UrbanNerd was indeffed, another user has arrived and continued UrbanNerd's edit war, claiming a consensus for the change based on UrbanNerd's past edit warring. Obviously the prior disruption of a banned user should have no impact on the establishment of consensus, and even if it did, two users edit warring the same change does not a consensus make. However, the editor doesn't seem to understand how consensus is established, and has a long history of being blocked for edit warring. (See discussion here.) Perhaps you could restore the long term stable version (see [7]), as it exist for four years prior to UrbanNerd's disruption, and protect, to force the user to discuss rather than edit war? TDL ( talk) 01:16, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
I saw that you reverted my edit here citing peacock, although none of the copyediting I did highlighted or promoted the subject. I think you may have interpreted my edit surrounding the funeral event and media coverage thereof as vandalism? Just looking for an explanation before I undo your revert. Outback the koala ( talk) 14:20, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi Ivanvector, the newest sock is in action [8]. This guy is so much persistent. Ktrimi991 ( talk) 22:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
The reason why I am bring up IP user 199.7.157.114 is because it feels this is the same user as IP user 199.119.224.0/20, who was suspended for three. I raise concern because when the name Hamish Marshall comes up, he gives very vague and nonsensical reasons to removing the changes I made and deletes a lot of information that is not related with the subject. Thanks 2620:22:4000:110:1FFE:99CB:B8C4:F88A ( talk) 16:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
[18] Is deleting stuff together with some other changes he tried to make four days ago. Ktrimi991 ( talk) 21:34, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
" casting aspersions about other editors' motivations and running to admin noticeboards whenever someone doesn't agree with their opinion".
There are plenty of people I disagree with at the Doug Ford article, but only one I've had issues with—Nocturnalnow even pointed that out in the ANI discussion. This comment is especially puzzling in light of the aspersions—which you know are false (I'm pushing what POV again?)—that NN has launched at me. You disagree with my position (which I hold in good faith), but I hope you could at least strike this comment. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:51, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi Ivanvector, as I searched for the model Cora Emmanuel's name on here (as I thought it's high time she had an article by now) I saw that it was deleted because there is some type of block that indefinitely prevents anyone besides admins from creating the page because of some other user's actions (never seen that before, really weird). Anyways, I came by here to ask if you could remove the block so that I could create the page myself. Looking at it for what it is, the notability aspect is definitely there for the article to be made. Thanks. Trillfendi ( talk) 19:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello. FYI Shingling's geolocation is no secret, he has even mentioned it himself, and the IP in the case leads to a provider that Shingling has used before, and a geolocation (which in the UK is the nearest NOC, usually within 20-25 miles or so of the actual location) that is only just over 15 miles southwest of their actual geolocation, so there's no doubt at all about it being him. It's not his usual IP-range, though, since his usual range has been rangeblocked... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 19:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Dear Ivan, IMHO, the discussion about Category:Descendants_of_John_Ames_(born_1647) should have been relisted in an attempt to obtain better feedback and consensus. Can you please enlighten me as to why a relisting was not in order? Please ping me when you respond. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 17:48, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
I just added Orchitaakter to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Abdullah Zubayer then noticed you'd called it as closed, though not yet done all the closing magic. I can submit a new report if it's too late. Thanks, Cabayi ( talk) 15:54, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi Ivanvector. Not sure I'm aware of the whole story with this one, but they seemed to be targeting/stalking past edits of yours. Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 20:03, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Re your question: the tag was added by DoRD, so I'd say the CU-check was made by them (to confirm "behavioural evidence"...). - Tom | Thomas.W talk 14:18, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
I was surprised to see this close which seems to say that a community ban discussion is the wrong question and that evasion is a ban(?). This admin has made similar premature closes in my experience. What do you think?- Mr X 🖋 15:18, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
The Portals WikiProject has been rebooted.
You are invited to join, and participate in the effort to revitalize and improve the Portal system and all the portals in it.
There are sections on the WikiProject page dedicated to tasks (including WikiGnome tasks too), and areas on the talk page for discussing the improvement and automation of the various features of portals.
Many complaints have been lodged in the RfC to delete all portals, pointing out their various problems. They say that many portals are not maintained, or have fallen out of date, are useless, etc. Many of the !votes indicate that the editors who posted them simply don't believe in the potential of portals anymore.
It's time to change all that. Let's give them reasons to believe in portals, by revitalizing them.
The best response to a deletion nomination is to fix the page that was nominated. The further underway the effort is to improve portals by the time the RfC has run its course, the more of the reasons against portals will no longer apply. RfCs typically run 30 days. There are 19 days left in this one. Let's see how many portals we can update and improve before the RfC is closed, and beyond.
A healthy WikiProject dedicated to supporting and maintaining portals may be the strongest argument of all not to delete.
We may even surprise ourselves and exceed all expectations. Who knows what we will be able to accomplish in what may become the biggest Wikicollaboration in years.
Let's do this.
See ya at the WikiProject!
Sincerely, —
The Transhumanist
10:21, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi Ivan! I see that you've removed the upload links to Commons on the List of national parks in Canada. Is there a specific reason for this? It would be really helpful for documentation and illustration purposes to have these links the whole year round, not only during the contest period. :-) Best, Braveheart ( talk) 10:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC)