User talk:Ivanvector

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

BLPSOURCES

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

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.

Template:Z33--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 Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

User talk:Londoncalling67

You've already blocked the account, but legal threats were made today on the talk page.--Cahk (talk) 08:29, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CK082n

I'm curious, why not block the "throwaway" accounts. At this point, they're just sleepers, no? -- RoySmith (talk) 19:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

When I started out clerking a few years ago, the admins who were active at SPI then didn't block any accounts that hadn't actively edited in some time, and I've kind of adopted that practice. It's kind of a judgement call, though. A lot of these spammers create throwaways with garbage passwords they don't write down, publish the article they've been paid to post, and then that account never edits again. They'll have moved on to the next throwaway for their next gig. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:11, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		The Admin's Barnstar
		Thank you for always doing the right thing as an administrator. At many occasions I have found your comments to be the most balanced, thoughtful, and within reason whether they involved incidents related to me or someone else or whether the comments were against me or in my favor. You definitely stand out from the crowd. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:05, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

2600:1:D01A:F75A::/64

I saw your AIV report to do a range block, but the contributions only shows one IP, which I've blocked anyway. Do you have any further information? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't, it's just pretty pointless to block a discrete IPv6, they rotate too quickly. A /64 usually represents one user. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 16:55, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

FYI, Ivan and Ritchie333, the range 2600:1:8000::/33 is now being used by WP:LTA/DENVER, geo-location not withstanding. I wonder if it's some sort of relay/proxy/whatever. Favonian (talk) 17:08, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

trade rumors

That protection was made in error but you added [sic] after it. Was there something grammatically wrong? Enigma^msg 20:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I'll remove it, it was a silly poke at an WP:ENGVAR issue, which wouldn't have applied to that article anyway. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:05, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I spell it rumours where appropriate but this was an American article. Enigma^msg 23:21, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

While I'm here, I guess I'll ask whether you think I should just resign or let arbcom process play out. Enigma^msg 23:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Honestly I suggest letting it play out, although it's likely to be a miserable experience for you. I had strong words about your comment on Martinb22's sandbox, which I see Beeblebrox has revdeleted so I won't repeat it (BB: you can review my comment at the case request if you feel it's necessary) but I stand by what I said about that. As for the rest, it's apparent that not everyone agrees that everything presented was clearly inappropriate, and it's arbcom's job to get to the bottom of everything. Or I guess you could look at it this way: if you were to resign now, rather than waiting for the case result which might end up in desysopping, the end result would effectively be the same. The case might just end up revealing justifications for many of the actions that editors are complaining about now. I don't personally like the idea of resigning because the mob has descended on you as rogue-admin-of-the-week; Arbcom is better at filtering out that effect and addressing the actual issues. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:09, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Soulspinr

It seems likely that User:Onto11, an account created hours after People's Party of Canada was semiprotected, is User:Soulspinr. 216.154.27.4 (talk) 02:40, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

2019 PEI general election

You may do as you wish with the 27 PEI ridings, concerning the 2019 election. The boxes will be created by someone, after Tuesday. No worries. GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Questions

I have a few questions regarding the community block which I hope you can answer so I can ensure that I do not make any edits which could be viewed as being out of compliance:

A) Does WP:BLP in this case refer only to living people connected with politics or tagged as politicians, or does it refer (given the "broadly construed" proviso) to ALL currently living people/individuals with articles on Wikipedia, regardless of politics? The latter would be a rather extreme interpretation.

B) Are deceased individuals (thus, NOT BLP) related to or tagged as connected to politics OK for me to edit? Or am I blocked from editing the articles of even deceased individuals tagged or connected to politics in any way?

C) Also, am I blocked from submitting for AFD any and all articles related to or tagged as connected to politics in any way? Does submitting for AFD count as editing? (I suspect it does but I just want to make sure.)

D) Is it possible and/or is there a statutory period of time I must wait to appeal (or request an amelioration or less broad construal) of the community blocks on BLP & POLITICS, as referenced above? Rms125a@hotmail.com 03:13, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your questions. Arbcom got involved with this after the community discussion so things may have changed, but with respect to the original discussion:

A) the restriction is from all biographies of living persons. Regardless of politics, as you put it. You are also banned from editing political topics. If it helps, consider it two separate bans: one from BLPs and one from politics; they overlap quite a bit but both are broadly construed. You may find it extreme, but the participants in the discussion found your behaviour extreme, so I suppose it's proportional.

B) I would say that biographies of deceased individuals connected to politics are also off-limits, per the second part of the ban.

C) Clearly yes. Submitting an article for deletion is an edit. Commenting on a discussion (AfD, etc.) related to a topic covered by your ban is also a violation.

D) In my own opinion, you can appeal any time if you think you can convince the community that the ban is no longer necessary. Practically speaking, most appeals are rejected if the appellant has not waited six months. That's not a formal restriction but it's common practice. As far as procedure, you're not blocked, so you do not need to seek clearance from me before making an appeal, just to be clear.

If Arbcom has modified any of this (courtesy ping Bbb23 and Joe Roe) they have not said how or why, as far as I can tell. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 13:57, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm a bit horrified that this indefinite block was lifted. That said, it seems the numerous edits made yesterday to living (or very recently deceased--as in the same day) individuals are already a violation of the ban. Immediately after returning, he edited Caren Marsh Doll and Rosemary De Angelis. Even if you assume the very best of faith (that he somehow didn't realize he should stay away from all living or recently deceased people until after getting clarification here and from Drmies), edits like this, made even after getting clarification from Drmies and with a damningly self-aware edit summary, seem to run afoul of it. It's not editing the direct biography, but it's editing so closely around a living person that it feels like it might as well be. Grandpallama (talk) 14:32, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

He continues to violate his topic ban with edits to Shantha Mayadunne and Louisa Moritz. I would block him because the violations are obvious but I need to ask for clarification from ArbCom on whether his successful appeal of my indefinite block somehow restricts me from taking administrative action. @Joe Roe and BU Rob13:?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:53, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Bbb23--I'm not in the same boat, but I'm in a very similar one; since I brought the AN case I don't want to be the blocker, and I really don't feel like blocking anyone today, but this is just bad and incomprehensible. Drmies (talk) 15:58, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Holy moly, Grandpallama. User:Rms125a@hotmail.com, what were you thinking? Drmies (talk) 15:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

@Drmies @Grandpallama @Ivanvector's squirrel Bbb23 Joe Roe) I realized after making the Rosemary De Angelis edits that I had goofed and I probably should have deleted them and explained in the edit summary. I didn't even think of that. I apologize. I was so used to editing all such pages that I did it without thinking. I am consciously trying to remember these restrictions. I do not believe I edited Caren Marsh Doll but did seek to add her name to the List of living centenarians.
I did not mean to violate the community block but being allowed to edit 20% of what one used to edit previously is a hard thing to get used to. I just came back. Give me a break. The goalposts have changed and we all make mistakes. I did not come back to get blocked immediately. I have to stop and consciously say to myself -- "Can I edit this?" That is a very new thing. Do you know how hard it is?? The fact that I asked the questions I did to @Drmies and others shows I am trying to be in compliance. Shantha Mayadunne and Louisa Moritz are both deceased, by the way. Rms125a@hotmail.com 17:21, 22 April 2019 (UTC)