User talk:Ivanvector

Page protection for Elliot Rodger

Is there anyway to semi-protect the article like the 2014 Isla Vista Killings? The page is already getting vandalized and IPs are adding unsourced and unreliable information. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 16:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

@Shoot for the Stars: 2014 Isla Vista killings is already extended-confirmed protected, did you mean a different article? Protection is normally requested at WP:RFPP. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:03, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I see in the edit history that some edits are already getting hidden. I’m just nervous that IPs and brand new accounts are going to add harmful or wrong information into the Elliot Rodger article. Do you think I should request it?

Shoot for the Stars (talk) 17:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I see, you mean the article Elliot Rodger, I misread your question. I'm having a look now, but I think it's just the one editor (using several IPs) adding the unsourced/poorly-sourced content, so I would say it's not necessary at this time. I am watching the page, though. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Perfect. Thank you. I’ll also let you know if I find anything that violates the article. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

This IP @176.29.222.214: keeps removing sourced information from the article even after warnings. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 16:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@Shoot for the Stars: thanks again. I don't think 2 edits warrants more than a warning just now, but I did clean up some other editors evading various blocks in the page history. Hopefully that will help. If you see more inappropriate IP editing on that article you should make a post at WP:RFPP, my availability is going to be poor for a week or two. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Closure of discussion

Thank you for closing the discussion. Can you tie it off on this notice board as you have done the close.

PicturePerfect666 (talk) 14:05, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done, although I marked the wrong discussion closed initially. Thanks for the reminder. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Casualties of the Israel–Hamas war on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

An/I

According to a report filed at the administrators notice board you and I are having off wiki conversations as we are in cahoots to disrupt the Eurovision Song Contest 2024 page and I have you in my pocket as my patsy opening RfCs on my command.

Just thought I’d give you a heads up on the fiction involving you written by some that should be in the running for the Booker Prize. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 13:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think Yoyo360 is an extended confirmed user and may only be over the 500 edits as a result of editing on topics extended confirmed only are allowed. Can you advise on what the best action to take is. I ask as I saw you shut down the An/I as it was from a non EC user. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 15:05, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

@PicturePerfect666: there's an easy way to tell: the user rights log. Granting extendedconfirmed is normally done automatically as soon as an account meets the criteria, but admins also can set it (or unset it) manually. You must have forgotten that you tried to report this at ANI already, a few days ago (Special:Permalink/1225120528#User:Yoyo360 Ignoring of page restriction after warning by admin).

Regarding today's ANI, yes I closed it because it violates ARBECR, but I also think you should take the criticism seriously. SMcCandlish is right that RFCs aren't meant for rehashing matters where there is already a firm consensus, and it is considered disruptive to repeatedly ask the same questions hoping to get more favourable answers. RFCs can be useful to attract more uninvolved input in cases where editors can't come to an agreement, but on the Eurovision page it's pretty obvious to anyone seeing the page for the first time that consensus is against your point of view. You made a proposal and presented your arguments, but a good majority of editors don't agree with you (I'm interpreting your viewpoint) that criticism of Israel should be downplayed. And of course it shouldn't: we don't decide what information is important to include or not for any topic, we go by the weight given by reliable sources, and there was plenty of coverage of incidents with Israel and Palestine in this year's Eurovision. The only question for Wikipedia is how to present it, not if we should.

Participating in a large collaborative project like Wikipedia involves interacting with people from all around the world, and not all of them will agree with you all of the time. Being able to discuss in good faith, find a consensus where it does not line up with your personal views, and see editors who disagree with you as editors just like you trying to work towards consensus rather than as your opponents or enemies, are essential skills for Wikipedia; the alternatives are to burn out or end up blocked. I think that you will find good advice in the essays on tendentious editing, accepting when a discussion has run its course, and one titled "you can't argue Wikipedia into capitulation". You might even like one called "don't give a fuck", which I've pinned to my own user page for years.

Also, please don't copy anything that an administrator writes and reproduce it as your own words. Impersonating an administrator, including acting as though you have the authority of one, will get you blocked in an awful hurry. We also don't really have that much authority, just some extra buttons. I can't go around telling people or leaving hidden notes that things have to be my way or else, other than very limited situations where I'm permitted by policy or there's already widespread consensus. If I did, I'd get blocked, and so will you if you don't stop. Plenty of users have asked you to stop doing it, you should take their advice. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I apologise if you believe placing the same restrictions you did on a section. I apologies for the oversight if i accidentally left anything pertaining to you in that. I believed I was doing the right thing as you had included the same restrictions in your RfC. I thought it was a mandatory requirement as you had also done so. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 17:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Aside: I think that accusations of editors being "in cahoots" via email are rather silly. Not only is there no way to ever prove it, there's not really a rule against it. We have a "contact this editor via email" feature for a reason, and its use is (obviously) permissible. There's some not-really-defined line across which something like WP:MEAT and WP:GANG can be happening, i.e. conspiratorial behavior to skew WP's coverage of a particular subject, but this really isn't an actionable rule, since there's no way to prove it. It's more of a matter of community culture, a "how not to go about things" maxim. The actionable part really comes down to core content policy, and ultimately it doesn't much matter whether a PoV or OR or unverifiable claims are being injected by a lone wolf or by a tagteam. Behavior-wise, when it comes to the community imposing sanctions, it's going to be based on on-wiki behavior, not hypotheses about how two or more editors might communicate behind the scenes. Just saying this as a general "word to the wise"; it's not closely responsive to anything at issue at that particular article's talk page or the resultant AN/I, which I have not really pored over yet.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

AN/I Closure

I just want to say that the implication that PicturePerfect666 created to say I think you are acting in bad faith is completely unfounded. I obviously do not think you are "in their pocket" or "in cahoots" or any other claims, as I said in the AN/I I think you have acted in fairly and in good faith, and I haven't seen an example otherwise.

All I am asking is that the concerns raised at the AN/I I have raised gets looked into. It is not about Israel or Palestine, if they were acting this way on the Woodworking article I would still be raising these concerns. I spent a long amount of time compiling a long list of their disruptive behaviour for this filing, including very specific diffs to outline each example, and it being dismissed based on my edit count is very demoralising. I read through the WP:ARBECR prior to filing and did not see any wording about AN/I being off-limits for this sort of discussion, as the filing was about their behaviour, not the actual Israel-Palestine conflict.

They are such as disruption that if both they and I got permablocked, I would still consider it a net-gain for Wikipedia. They will use the closure of that AN/I as permission to keep being disruptive, and they have already gone back to badgering in the talk pages. All I'm asking is that the contents of my AN/I filling is able to be considered. BugGhost🎤 15:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I’d drop the stick if I were you. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 15:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Additionally I am sorry normal discussion practices [as shown above] on issues on the content at hand, are disliked. I am sorry you seem to want me to not be involved in any discussions at all. That is not how Wikipedia operates. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 15:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

BugGhost, I did write out some advice to PicturePerfect666 based on your complaints at ANI and what I've observed on the Eurovision talk page over the past couple days, but I was writing it while you were writing this (see above). I don't disagree with you, but I am hopeful that an assertive course-correction will be a better use of everyone's time here than doling out page restrictions and topic bans. They are options if the advice is not taken, though.

As for ARBECR, just to give you some insight into its history: the extended-confirmed user access level came about after an arbitration case relating to the 2014 Gaza war, which was already covered by arbitration sanctions applying to the Arab-Israeli conflict since the early days of Wikipedia. We had a very big problem of editors on both ideological sides of the war disrupting the topics and derailing discussions, and creating sockpuppets as fast as they could be blocked. At the time, if your account was blocked there was nothing technically preventing you from creating a new one, and after 4 days and 10 edits you could go right back to disruption. You'd get blocked again, but another 4 days later you'd be right back at it. So several editors suggested that we should bar editing pages within the broad topic to users with significantly more experience. If you needed 30 days and 500 edits, the idea was you needed to commit much more effort to create new sockpuppets for the topic, and most vandals would lose interest. And it has largely worked. I also argued at the time that the topics were so volatile that we should keep genuine new users away from them until they got more experience, because it got so bad that any new account that edited those topics was immediately accused of being a sockpuppet and then harassed off of Wikipedia. So it was partly for new users' protection as well: nobody wants to stick around a collaborative project where you're getting yelled at on day one for stuff that has nothing to do with you.

Regrettably, for a variety of reasons that I largely don't agree with, the original protective restriction has evolved into a prohibitive sanction that punishes genuine new users for no really good reason, in the form of ARBECR. We've always had a policy that page protection can be used to halt ongoing disruption but that we don't protect pages without a good reason, but somewhere along the way we decided that ARBECR can be applied for any page that's even remotely related to a short list of approved topics for no reason at all, which roughly is how we ended up with anti-new-user sanctions on a page about a fucking reality show, exactly the sort of article that attracts new users. It's a travesty, frankly. But I also feel that, once the sanction is in place, the only worse thing than it being enacted is it being enforced unevenly, and so I do my part as best I can, and as neutrally and fairly as I can. Of course I'm not perfect, just like everyone else.

-- Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I understand the argument for having a bar to set to stop new accounts from editing important and sensitive articles, because it stops disruptive editors sockpuppetting (in some cases) - that part of the rule makes a lot of sense to me. What I'm struggling with is when there's proof of someone doing something very disruptive, that evidence can be ignored if the person who laid it out hasn't corrected enough spelling mistakes yet, even if the evidence itself is sound.

I'll drop the argument now (congrats PP666). Maybe I'll be back in 285 edits time with a even longer AN/I, but hopefully not. BugGhost🎤 21:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Could the AN/I be reopened on my behalf? Because my complaints are similar and I technically now meet the requirements. Or I could just copy paste it all. Yoyo360 (talk) 22:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

No idea about reopening it, but from my perspective you can copy/paste/modify anything I wrote, no issues from me BugGhost🎤 23:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

@Yoyo360: I don't have any grounds to prevent you if you want to take on BugGhost's complaint, and you don't need to copy-paste it, you can just say you agree with the report and would like it to be considered. Personally I wouldn't just yet: PP666 hasn't edited at all since we started discussing here, and per SMcCandlish's comment below we'll see when they return if they're here to learn and develop and edit constructively, or if they're a POV warrior that needs to be removed. I'm going to write up a clarification request regarding my ARBECR close, I'll be required to notify you when I do, so watch for that in a bit. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:28, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

an assertive course-correction will be a better use of everyone's time here than doling out page restrictions and topic bans Yes, this is usually the case with regard to any well-meaning editor (versus a troll, vandal, spammer, or an activist or other inveterate PoV manipulator trying to abuse WP as a viewpoint-promotion platform). Ultimately, we need more not fewer good editors, and they are made, they develop; they're not born with a magical "great editor" gift. We can't, as a community, train people up into excellent encyclopedists if we hound them away for early mistakes.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:23, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Clarification on SPI

First of all, thank you so much for dealing with this SPI on Muhammad Umar Ali. However, I would disagree with this comment of yours. I had filed the SPI on 8 May, while Basedkashmiri filed it on 12 May. There was no duplication from me. Ratnahastin (talk) 14:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Ah, that explains all the other template problems with their report. Thanks for pointing that out, I'll correct myself. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Regarding WP:BANREVERT & WP:G5

Hey Ivanvector, Can you please tell me if WP:G5 should be applied per WP:BANREVERT? I'm confused because if these socks were in violation of Aditya Nakul's ban or not, therefore I'm refraining from placing speedy deletion to their articles. Also thank you so much for your help at SPI on Mohammad Umar Ali & in the ANI. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 16:24, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

@Based Kashmiri: normally for G5 the "master" (oldest account) is supposed to be blocked beforehand and the socks editing while evading that block, so under normal circumstances I'd say no (since AdityaNakul wasn't blocked until today). In this case, even though I didn't give an opinion on who the master is, it's obvious from the checkuser logs that AdityaNakul isn't this user's first account - they're very comfortable switching between the accounts and pretending to be different people, and making new socks for whatever purpose they find convenient, as though they've been doing it for years. So just in this case, in my opinion yes, both G5 and BANREVERT apply. I've already undone and struck some of the socks' edits, but I'll be travelling for a couple days and probably not checking in. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:01, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply @Ivanvector. But here, Sir Sputnik has declined the speedy deletion of the sock's page. Similarly another user Flemmish Neitzsche is giving the same reason of "oldest account" [1]. As you can see I'm confused. Can you please tell us what should be done? Should I refrain from asking for speedy deletion and reverting their edits? Since you're traveling these days so you don't have to reply to me, happy travelling. Regards. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 05:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@Based Kashmiri: well, they're not wrong, the wording in the policy is that the page is created in violation of the master account's block or ban, and they weren't blocked or banned at the time. It's my opinion that this case is probably not the user's first foray into sockpuppetry but I also can't prove anything, and other admins can form their own opinions. I'll let Sir Sputnik and Flemmish Nietzsche know that we had this conversation, but nobody can force them to delete the pages. You could argue for deletion through WP:MFD but drafts usually survive deletion discussions, and otherwise the page should be eligible for WP:G13 deletion eventually. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Very well, I got you @Ivanvector and I had already informed that about this discussion. Thanks again. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 17:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Ivan,

I was going to reply to you on the arbitration request page but I had already written a novel over there, and I wasn't sure if it was appropriate to do this while it was still open - but now it's closed, I just wanted to say thanks for what you said. I have no idea if I'm doing this right, but here we go:

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thanks for standing up for newbies like me who have no idea what's going on BugGhost🪲👻 15:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I know you rejected my AN/I but I understand why it happened, so no hard feelings there. I appreciate your detailed ECR clarification above, the arbitration request about it, and then you defending me when my motives were questioned. The arb request was a bit daunting but your (and Novem Linguae's) responses are probably why I'm still logged into this website.

Thanks,

BugGhost🪲👻 15:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Partial IP Block

Hello,

I've recently faced a partial IP block by you. I am a new to wikipedia and have made some genuine edits. So, can you review this block and help.

Thanks

TheRealBilal (talk) 12:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi TheRealBilal, welcome to Wikipedia. The network where you are experiencing an IP block is partially blocked because some other users have used that network to write advertisements on Wikipedia, which is against our policy and our terms of service. Their edits damage Wikipedia, and so the network is partially blocked to limit their disruption. Unfortunately that means that any user connected to the same network will not be able to create or edit drafts or move any page, which are the activities that cause the most harm. You should be able to edit any other page on Wikipedia as long as it is not protected, and when your account is 4 days old and has 10 edits you will also be able to create and move pages as long as you follow our policies. Please see Help:Your first article for more information.

You may also want to read our policy on the use of multiple accounts. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)