User talk:Ivanvector/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for making good calls in moderating discussions to keep peace and keep conversation focused on improving the wiki. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:25, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Cevallos and Ganim

We have no beef between us. Let's not create one. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5C2:300:62E:2D79:1C9F:332B:6B05 (talk) 18:04, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Rebecca Petty has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Rebecca Petty. Thanks! Eternal Shadow Talk 17:11, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Rebecca Petty has been accepted

Rebecca Petty, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Eternal Shadow Talk 17:12, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

So LittleMemories/Tognella99

We apparently have a wiki-stalker: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LittleMemories for the most recent version. Any advice/ideas on longer-term measures or is this just gonna be a whack-a-mole situation? Thanks in advance. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Eggishorn: I've been collecting some data on this troll, I'll see what I can do. Block on sight of course, but this case is worth running checkuser. People have the weirdest obsessions. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:12, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. They must have a really simple, worry-free life if they have the time and energy for this. <rolleyes> Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:47, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Because they have all the subtlety of a Jägermonster, I've watchlisted all the "Italian Destroyer <xxx>" articles. Almost all the legit edits are by either Chesipiero or Sturmvogel 66, so any redlinked user making a series of one-letter changes will be an obvious sock. I can format a list of those if you want to also add them to your watchlist. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:32, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for introducing me to the "Clear" formatting template

Thanks for fixing the L St Laurent page, and also introducing me to a formatting template I didn't know existed. Will come in handy! Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 23:33, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

WP:ROPE

I have drafted an alternative version of this essay at User:Cullen328/sandbox/One last chance and invite your input. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:51, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion

You're being baited. Don't fall for it. Just disengage (as I did further up the page) before you say something in anger/annoyance that will complicate your life. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:55, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh, you're no fun. But thank you for the advice, I will go do something else. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 19:02, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

They're resorting to something like the Chewbacca defense. I particularly like the:

• Editor G: States opinion as fact.
• Editor P: Counters that with opposite opinion, with concrete argument.
• Editor G: Yeah? Well, you know, that's just like uh, your opinion, man.

I know you have more patience than I do (how could you not?), but it seemed like it might have started to work on you. Maybe not, I did kind of ignore the possibility you were having fun. Talking to people like that is the opposite of fun for me, maybe I was assuming. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:11, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I was expecting something more akin to green cheese: "Show me a real world example. ... That example is about New Brunswick. Show me a real world example". But then also following up with "Wikipedia is not the real world", so I guess we were going to go in circles no matter what. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 19:16, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, I have to thank you; the edit conflict with one of your replies gave me time to reconsider posting my own, allowing me to just stop re-engaging with someone who--ahem--isn't open to changing their mind about this subject. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:17, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm proud to have been of some service. People don't have to be open-minded to edit here of course, but on a project with so many people from so many different backgrounds, it helps, and it's too bad that more people don't see it that way. People are entitled to their opinions, but when an editor's expression of their opinion negates the personhood of a broad group of fellow editors, my opinion is that they deserve to be challenged. We won't change that editor and it's pointless to try, but they're not the only ones watching. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 19:30, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Jesus wept. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:55, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

The weather report: Is it SNOWing?

You reverted before I could, but then self-reverted. IMO 5-1 after a few days still has a chance of turning around to some other consensus (even if that's unlikely, and if I'd probably !vote keep myself). I'm a big fan of NOTBURO, but in this case I just don't think it's SNOWing yet. Okay if I revert your revert of your revert? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 13:46, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the double-ping. I don't get notifications on the alt for posts here but I do get emails. I'm not sure what would be accomplished by reverting the close again, which is why I self-reverted. It seems like Qwerfjkl doesn't even realize they've now close that discussion poorly twice, and if we just revert they'll probably see the open near-unanimous discussion and inappropriately close it a third time. I think it would be better to leave this close be (since it is a pretty clear keep: the nominator didn't give a very good rationale for deletion and everyone else who commented has said it's an obvious keep) and leave a note for the closer that they shouldn't have done that. I don't have time right now, I have a meeting in 3 minutes :S Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 13:56, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I wrote the above before I saw that you'd formally re-closed as an admin action. Which I can live with. My concern was more with a questionable NAC being left to stand. (I think I'm much more tolerant of NACs than most people (seeing as I make one or two a week myself usually), and even think the occasional out-of-process NAC can be justified (seeing as I've done that a few times too), but I dislike NACs that include no rationale, outside the most obvious of cases.) If this had been your close to begin with, I'd've probably scratched my head at it and moved on with my day. So... shrugs. Not a hill I'll die on. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 14:06, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't aware of the WP:SK criteria, and you didn't leave any indication of it in your edit summary. ― Qwerfjkltalk 19:48, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

@Qwerfjkl: my edit summary was "Revert inappropriate (inadvertent?) early close: closer did not specify a rationale for closing early (see WP:SK)". Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:51, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I meant for the first revert. ― Qwerfjkltalk 14:05, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

That was the first revert. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:14, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Strange... I didn't get notified for that, only for this. My apologies. ― Qwerfjkltalk 17:09, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

There's no rollback or undo tag on the first revert, and if I recall correctly those are the only kinds that trigger a notification. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 18:02, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Advice

Hi! I have been increasingly concerned with KigToons (talk · contribs) editing patterns. They frequently will add/remove/change cast lists, sometimes without explanation, sometime citing official credits or billing blocks (when this info is not yet available). Sometimes this is followed up with proper citation, sometimes it is not. In my opinion, I feel that this editor is pushing POV to elevate certain cast members over others arbitrarily. Beyond that, I have left notes and messages on their talk page asking for explanation and trying to start a conversation, but these are not followed up with response. I am not sure how to proceed. I know you have looked at this editor's past and I'm hoping you could give some guidance. BOVINEBOY2008 00:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Cold Season

• Link to discussion

I would not describe any discussion I have had with Cold Season since autumn 2019 as "productive". Cold Season has done a good job filibustering out any discussion in which his viewpoint is disagreed with, and then engage in months-long vigilante edit wars to push his point of view when others aren't looking. Previous attempts at escalation fizzled out due to a perception that there was insufficient attempts at local resolution; and when local resolution was attempted in further detail before escalation, it gets interpreted as local resolution being effective (despite the fact that it definitely wasn't). I respect your admin work greatly but in this case it is unfortunate that your closure is enabling him to continue gaming the system, and indirectly enabling certain censorious regimes to push their point of views onto our global knowledge resource. Deryck C. 10:38, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Deryck Chan, nice to see you again. I explained in the close why I thought topic bans require broader and more enthusiastic support than your proposal achieved, and how I thought it inappropriate to revive the stale, archived discussion a month later apparently just because it wasn't "closed formally". You must have noticed that only two participants in that discussion were not editors you notified? I can't see how any neutral admin would see a cause to act based on that. However, you can interpret my view on the close as "no quorum" rather than "no consensus" if you think that makes it clearer.

At any rate, you're of course free to challenge or revert my close, but I think your more productive path here is to make a new report. This time, don't rely on the past discussion which also fizzled, and don't rely on anyone else to review the background themselves. They'll likely see what I see: a mess of reverts and long back-and-forth discussions, which is pretty much what every article with any kind of dispute looks like. Instead, bring specific examples with diffs showing how Cold Season's interference is disruptive to the articles. You were involved in the disputes and know exactly what behaviour you need to point out to make your case, and you can better show how the behaviour has been disruptive over time and is ongoing. You'll attract more attention if your case is clear. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:24, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

'Tis up to you.

FWIW, if you want to reverse my changes at Deputy Premier of Manitoba & restore the ordinals in the eight related-bios? I won't object. But, you'll be facing an edit-war at Kelvin Goertzen, with editor Mewulwe. GoodDay (talk) 21:16, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@GoodDay: I'm sure you know where WP:AN3 is for reporting edit warring. You'll probably get a better response there rather than complaining about it on a WikiProject discussion page. As for the ordinals I really don't have a strong opinion either way, only that we should decide. That way if it comes up again we can refer to a consensus instead of dealing with each incident in isolation. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I've dealt with Mewulwe's arrogant approach to the topic, for years. If you want to open up an RFC on the matter, anywhere on the 'pedia? that's fine with me. Perhaps, a criteria for adding/deleting ordinals in such infoboxes, could be established. GoodDay (talk) 14:03, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

redirect

F.Y.I, there was a bad non-admin closed on Mystical Body of Christ - only two differing opinions is a No Consensus. Since you are one of the two, I'll leave it to you to contact the closer about this. MB 01:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@MB: I think you should read the discussion more closely. There were only two commenters: I initially disagreed with the other editor but they convinced me of their position, and we both agreed with retargeting. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 10:41, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

OK, I was just looking into this because, at the time, the RFD was closed but the hatnotes were not updated and there was a Missing Redirect flagged. I glanced at the discussion and stopped reading after you said "wrong argument". Anyway, hatnotes have since been fixed, so no issues now. MB 15:16, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Editing restrictions

Hi Ivan - hope you are well. At WP:ER/UC you logged for user A.A Prinon about being restricted to one account. For info, per this SPI case closed today, they've continued to edit with another account. I don't know if you need to do anything at WP:ER/UC, but I thought I'd drop you a note just incase. Thanks for your help with this matter earlier in the year. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:40, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Lugnuts, thanks for your note, I haven't been following the case since the spring. I'm disappointed they kept up their harassment campaign and continued socking. I'm going to leave that note at WP:ER, I guess technically they're still under the one-account restriction which will still be in effect in the event they manage to convince someone to unblock them. I'll make a modification to note their main account. Cheers. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 14:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Victims of communism

First of all, sorry for the length (summarizing is not exactly my strength yet but I try, and use notes to improve rediability). Second of all, thanks so much for your response here, and I think that your description of "victims of communism" as "more of a propaganda topic than a scholarly debate" is exactly the point that many users who defend that article do not get; it is no wonder that the only other 'encyclopedias' to have such an article are Conservapedia and Metapedia. It is not enough to have a few, even academically (Rummel, Valentino), sources generally discussing the topic if they are a minority and are ignored by most scholars of Communism apart from, say, Ghodsee. If we cannot write a NPOV article, that article should not exist until our policies and guidelines are actually respected and followed. Because that article is not only unhelpful but, in my humble opinion, is actively harmful in propagating such unscholarly topic and a likely source of citogenesis. Now, I do not know whether you think that an article on the topic can actually be written by respecting NPOV and WEIGHT, while avoiding OR and SYNTH, or if it should be deleted — but "victims of communism" would be a better and more accurate name. I mean, the title itself is SYNTH because if there is one thing genocide scholars can at least partially agree is that the most-commonly used definition of mass killing is 50,000 killings within five years, but this would limit the scope only to Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, so we synthethise it by using a generic definition where 4 deaths is a mass killing.

Notes

I have created the disambiguation for several reasons:

• "Victims of communism" is a common name, even if POVish. Unlike MKuCR, there is a literature about it that I mentioned on the talk page.
• As the name itself seem to come from such "Victims of Communism" memorials, I thought it relevant or useful to have a disambiguation about it.
• Have a discussion on whether Victims of communism (it should be capitalized because they happened under Communism, i.e. a Communist party-led state, rather than communism, a distinction even made, of all sources, in The Black Book of Communism) should actually be the name of the MKuCR article. It is a common name, and unlike MKuCR it does not engage in SYNTH, or not reflecting RS(s), by using it in a generic sense rather than the most-common accepted threshold of genocide scholars.

Again, this would reduce the scope to Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot. I think some users who want to keep the article in spite of everything do not accept this because it would mean drastically reducing the topic to them, and we already have relevant articles about each one, so it is unclear why we should have such article. The only literature is Karlsson & Schoenhals 2008 on the basis that Stalin influenced Mao, who influenced Pol Pot; in such cases, killings were carried out as part of a policy of an unbalanced modernization process of rapid industrialisation (Karlsson & Schoenhals 2008, p. 8), not communism itself, so the alleged link for having such an article is gone. In addition, Cambodia is also often compared to non-Communist regimes, and the link in the comparative analysis is not communism but I am digressing. Davide King (talk) 04:42, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:ELECTCOM2021

Hello Ivanvector. Thank you for volunteering for the Electoral Commission for the 2021 ArbCom Election. Following the closure of the ELECTCOM RfC, you have been selected as a reserve commissioner. Congratulations! Some important pages to watch about the election are: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021/Coordination, Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021/Coordination, Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021, and others in Category:Wikipedia Arbitration Committee Elections 2021. As a reservist you have no official duties, but your assistance and expertise are welcome as a de facto coordinator. In the event of a vacancy in the commission, you may be activated - should this be required it is generally declared by the majority of the remaining active commissioners. Again, thank you for volunteering for this important position. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 23:38, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Phoebus cartel

Quite some time back you were kind enough to provide a third opinion on Talk:Phoebus cartel, but I'm afraid the dispute has flared up again. Could I trouble you to revisit the page and spell out your view? Jpatokal (talk) 09:41, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your note Jpatokal. My comment in the discussion was really with respect to sockpuppetry, and not on the topic of the page which I'm really not at all familiar with. I don't think I can be of help here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 03:28, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:16, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

UrbanNerd IP sock

Hi Ivanvector. You were the closing admin on the most recent SPI for UrbanNerd in 2018. I just came across the latest IP sock. Contribution history quacks at all the usual ponds. What is the most expeditious way to block the sock? Another SPI, direct to ANI, or alternate? Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 05:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Hwy43! Sorry I haven't time to look into this myself, I am having A Winter this year. I suggest filing an SPI as normal, it's helpful for us to have a record of ongoing abuse in one place, and this case hasn't been updated in nearly 4 years. There have recently been a new batch of eager clerks trained at SPI who have helped to nearly eliminate the perpetual backlog, for the first time in the seven years I've been participating. Cheers, Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:10, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Caught in the cross-fire

I see you blocked User:207.228.78.0/24. [1] Somehow that also led to me being blocked when editting from my phone while in Saskatchewan, which is where I spend most of my time. I do a lot of travelling and right now I'm in Manitoba now so my phone is using a different IP and I can once again edit. I'm not a techy so I have no idea how this could've happened. All I know is I'm not the one who made the edits that got the IP banned (and no one had access to my phone). I'm not sure how to get this resolved but I would very much like to be able to edit from my phone in Saskatchewan again. I hope this is an easy quick fix. Thanks! Masterhatch (talk) 03:27, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@Masterhatch: apologies, I set the block too aggressively. You should not be affected by it now. Just so you know, you should always be able to edit your own talk page if you're affected by a block like this, and can ping an admin or use an unblock template there for help. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you!Masterhatch (talk) 15:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Freedom Convoy 2022

Based on the amount of red names/new editors I'm seeing on the edit history at the Freedom Convoy article - I'm concerned there's a current influx of socks to get around the semi-protection. Should I open an investigation? CaffeinAddict (talk) 04:52, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't see it, yet. Events like this tend to attract new editors, that's probably all it is. In my experience the trolls come out after the event and try to skew the narrative, keep an eye out for that and stick to the sources. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if this editor was thinking of me. Please see the section below to see the underlying pattern of their edits/talk. SystemEff (talk) 16:44, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Ivanvector - thanks for the response, I suppose I was following this page in particular along with my regular COVID-19 article watch lists to prevent misinformation where I can. SystemEff - a) You're not the only red name/new editor in the edit history b) if you are not a sock, a sock investigation would not affect you so you would not have anything to worry about :). CaffeinAddict (talk) 18:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Advice on an uncharitable editor

I would appreciate a couple of responses from you.

• Talk:Freedom_Convoy_2022#Selective_removal_of_timeline_updates
• As the above discussion states, what is the best way to deal with uncharitable editors? You can see the history of my talk page to see this editor's pattern of communications to me.

SystemEff (talk)

Notably, per WP:OAS, "Where disagreement persists after such a reversion, the editor proposing the change should first take the matter to the talk page, without personal comments or accusations of ownership. In this way, the specifics of any change can be discussed with the editors who are familiar with the article, who are likewise expected to discuss the content civilly." - but this person decided to go for accusing me of ownership anyway.[2]. Note that this editor never initiates talk page discussion (when reverting), but I do. SystemEff (talk) 16:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

They seemed to have gotten off a bad start with me, and see no sign of cooperating. Case in point: [3]. Sensing this I had tried to be welcoming[4], but that had no effect on this user as you can see. SystemEff (talk) 16:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

It is also possible I'm over-reacting here. Any advice is welcome. SystemEff (talk) 17:08, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I think you're doing fine. CaffeinAddict is taking a more perfectionist approach to the article than some of the rest of us and there's some butting of heads going on, but that happens on Wikipedia, and mostly anyone who's been editing for any length of time runs into this sort of dispute eventually. Try not to take any criticism personally, it's a slippery slope to burnout, but of course we also have a policy forbidding personal attacks if you're really being attacked. Have a look at that policy, there is a wide range of interpretation as to what is a personal attack and what is just fair comment. Taking the dispute to the talk page is the best approach, you have a number of experienced editors there already and that's normally the best way to settle things. If you're in a dispute and you get to an impasse with another editor, we have dispute resolution where experienced editors can provide input; you can request a third opinion on an issue, and if things get really out of hand you can post at the administrators' noticeboard for incidents, but that last page can get very unhinged and you really should only post there if you've already tried everything else.

I would suggest you create your own user page, even if you just save an empty page. That way the link in your signature will be blue instead of red. Some editors here have an unconscious bias against new/inexperienced users, and having a red-link signature is a good indicator of that. It's a silly thing but it will probably save you some frustration. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:45, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

SystemEff - I have also engaged with you on your own talk page, but you continue to delete my comments. I guess we can continue to communicate via other talk pages, if necessary. CaffeinAddict (talk) 18:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, Ivanvector. I didn't know about WP:DR and WP:30. That might come in handy in the future. I did take the criticism personally, so I'll take some break from editing this page, and focus on other articles, or do something else. SystemEff (talk) 18:29, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

IP editor threats

Hi, can you revoke TPA for 172.58.224.0/21 per this? Thanks. Cards84664 06:52, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

We got us a Convoy!

Ah, breaker, Pig Pen, this here's the Duck! 🚛 https://globalnews.ca/news/8602177/freedom-convoy-protest-us-far-right-support/ 🚛 El_C 20:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Looks like I owe you a Coke. I knew to expect the police to be ineffective, but I'm amazed at how much effort they've put into not doing anything at all. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I'll take it! Though we've possibly hit critical mass, at least for the Borderlands: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-ontario-plans-seizure-of-trucks-fines-to-reopen-windsor-bridge-sources/ El_C 07:37, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Sockpuppet blocking

Hi Ivanvector, thanks for your close at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/RJII. I saw that you said you'd blocked all three CU-confirmed accounts but then I noticed that two (Precious delicate sweet little baby and Editor Without Bias) still have clean block logs. Was this an oversight? Or have I failed to understand something about the process? If it's the latter, please disregard this message. Much appreciated, Generalrelative (talk) 00:32, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Generalrelative! Nothing special here, you caught me in an oversight. When I'm blocking in an SPI I usually open the block interface for each user in a new tab, click all the buttons, and then go back and tag from the result interface. I wasn't going to tag this case so I just closed the tabs, and I've been having a lot of what seem to be DNS failures lately and some of the blocks seem to have not gone through. I've fixed it now. Thanks for the heads up! Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Aha, that makes sense! Thanks again, Generalrelative (talk) 00:59, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Evlekis

Hello. All Evlekis socks should always have their TPA revoked, or they will invariably start posting crap on their talk page, so could you please remove TPA for Special:Contributions/Zack_N_Jack and Special:Contributions/Brownfingerslayerz? Cheers, - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:14, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I think my block settings on their IP ranges would've taken care of that, but happy to oblige. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Evlekis seems to often have access to multiple IP ranges at the same time, just switching to a new one when the one he's just used is blocked... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:19, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

He used Special:Contributions/46.233.91.119 for tagteaming with "Brownfingerslayerz", both posting on the same page right after each other, with the exact same timestamp, yet the IP isn't blocked, which ought to mean that "Brownfingerslayerz" used a different IP range. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I have to invoke the checkuser cloak of secrecy here, but trust me that I'm on it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

More work: Special:Contributions/KkKk121. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:22, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

And even more work: User talk:I sniff Maria Zakharova's feet (blocked, but with TPA still enabled). Created today so it might yield an interesting IP. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Question about a 2020 SPI

Hey there, I noticed that in late 2020, a discussion in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Theonewithreason/Archive was resolved with a confirmation and blocking of sockpuppets, but the one-week block of the sockpuppeteer made by GeneralNotability was not modified. (I could have also posted this to their talk page, I guess...) I don't recall seeing this kind of an apparent act of lenience before, does it happen often?

Either way, fast forward to the present day... this user seems to have been engaging in content disputes (some of which I attested to or was part of myself), and today I noticed a disturbing pattern of behavior - they continued what seems to be a long-term revert war at Višeslav of Serbia, and then -- instead of responding on Talk about that matter -- filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Crovata/Archive#13 February 2022, in what seems to me to be an attempt to disqualify their opposition in that dispute without actually having to argue the merits, i.e. gaming the system. Maybe I'm just being paranoid, but it's not my first rodeo with Balkan topic area abuse...

The other user in that dispute is certainly no sunshine and has previously been severely sanctioned (thanks to RoySmith in early 2021), but is now back under a restriction, one that also caused the aforementioned Talk page discussion to exist in the first place.

Maybe it's time to reassess the earlier lenience, in light of this? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@Joy: generally: we don't typically block users indefinitely for a first sockpuppetry offence in isolation; my standard for a long time has been two weeks and I've been criticized for that being too harsh.

The Theonewithreason case was really borderline as I recall, and was also obfuscated because of interfering technical data from a long-term abuse case; I really couldn't tell you now why I didn't modify Generalrelative's block but WP:AGF does weigh in my decision-making. As for presently, I think Theonewithreason's concern was reasonable, given Miki Filligranski's block log and the IP activity during Miki's lengthy block. Per RoySmith's comments it doesn't seem to have amounted to anything, but as we say, just because we don't find anything doesn't necessarily mean that it was wrong to look.

I'm also pretty familiar with editors weaponizing SPI as a substitute for discussion; I was pretty active in the India-Pakistan disputes years back when I was starting out at SPI, and I've adminned my way around the Balkans too. One possible incident is probably nothing to get your guard up over (AGF is policy, remember) but if you do notice a pattern, feel free to bring it up again. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:53, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh, then I guess I hardly ever deal with first offenders. In retrospect, I guess a lot of my experience with SPI has been with hardcore repeat business, sigh.

I think restrictions have been useful, and would apply some myself, but since I actually edit in this topic area, it's harder to do because I actually often come in contact with so many of these folks and then I'm too often automatically involved. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Sockpuppets on Buyeo and more

About Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zessede, what is an editor supposed to do if new accounts and anonymous users keep making the same edits? I know that RoySmith said to wait before continuing the investigation, but the page keeps being attacked in the meantime.

After Zessede and Aqww did it (as we discussed at the investigation page), the new users Accplc1213 and 220.95.101.209 just removed the references and material from Buyeo. The new ones from this week (Accplc1213, Aqww, 220.95.101.209) are ignoring the attempt to discuss this on Talk:Buyeo while continuing to push their Korean nationalist stance.

Am I supposed to keep moving the page back to its original version until this person get bored and stops? Several other editors were also undoing the new Korean nationalist accounts and anonymous users for the past year. I don't mean to sound frustrated, but there must be some other way than having to go back to check the newest account ignoring everyone else to remove the academic mainstream (Cambridge University Press, Oxford University Press, De Gruyter, Routledge, Taylor & Francis, Antiquity (journal), Asian Affairs, ...).

Thanks again. I would appreciate your help (I also just asked RoySmith this). MGetudiant (talk) 02:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I guess Esiymbro just changed it back, so Buyeo is back to normal. But regard my question above as one on general procedure on how to handle the new accounts. Should I keep changing the page back to normal until there is enough evidence to restart the investigation? MGetudiant (talk) 02:36, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@MGetudiant: personally I wouldn't have been as quick to dismiss your concerns as RoySmith but I also don't disagree with him that it's difficult to evaluate a pattern based on only 4 edits. In my opinion, brand new accounts restoring edits that were made by a proven sock is very good evidence of sockpuppetry, and I think you should feel free to report them. That's what SPI is for, to draw attention from editors experienced in investigating sockpuppetry. This case is difficult because it seems (from the technical side) to be several different people making the same edit, rather than one person, but that also doesn't necessarily mean that it's not sockpuppetry (or meatpuppetry). I don't recommend that you keep reverting new accounts that make the same edit: some admins will interpret that as edit warring and you don't want to end up blocked for that. RoySmith has protected the page from being edited by new accounts for a while, that should help. If more new accounts show up making the same edits after that protection expires, I would suggest that's a good time to file another report under the same SPI case, and if it does get renamed/merged there will be a pointer from the old name. I hope this helps. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. Can you take a look at the article again?

After the protection, Aqww undid 3 other editors 6 times (isn't that edit warring?), while even using the same exact words as Zessede did: [5] [6]. Then Zessede returned to undo an editor and make the same edit as Aqww: [7]. Then another new account Q1A1Z did the same: [8].

Can I restore the page? Zessede/Aqww/Q1A1Z have not addressed any of the concerns on the talk page (Zessede and Q1A1Z did just comment on it, but without addressing anything substantial while still making their edits). MGetudiant (talk) 18:03, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Canadian Indian residential school gravesites

Regarding this edit, do you have something you'd like to say to me? Magnolia677 (talk) 22:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean, I thought using the custom parameter functionality was a fair way to reflect the referenced data, keeping in mind your concern that the sourcing does not support that the identified grave sites are equivalent to confirmed deaths. I also think that WP:BLUE applies (why dig a grave if not to put a dead body in it?) but making the text of the parameter match the actual data does seem like a better approach. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

If you thought blue applied you wouldn't have changed the template. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:35, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I still don't know what point you're trying to make. I reverted with BLUE in mind, but then I went to see if there was a more fitting parameter to use instead of |deaths=. As far as I could tell there's not: there's |reported deaths= and a series for |casualties= but I didn't think those were any more suitable, and then I found the custom parameter fields and so I did that instead. I don't work with infoboxes much, custom parameters are a new thing to me. I thought about restoring the 34 deaths field, but then I thought that, by the same logic, the 34 bodies that turned up after one of the sites flooded aren't necessarily causally linked to the residential school system either, so I just left it out. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 01:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Tamara Nasser Deputy Marketing Manager Drusillas Park

So, what are you going to do to make sure she doesn't keep committing marketing in our article(s)? This isn't a public park, you know, it's just another tourist trap. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Back off. It was one edit and she was working on compliance when you hardblocked her. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:50, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

DrusillasZooPark

(SIGH) I had partially blocked from the COI article and let them know about the COI user name. I did not read them as being intent on promotion, just lacking understanding of our ways. Which they confirmed on my talk. Some people are just a little too hard ass. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

That's what I thought, they were just trying to correct info that was provably wrong. I'm pretty sure my unblock undid your par-block, but I thought that block log was already polluted enough if they don't re-offend. I'm in a meeting for the next few hours but I'll check back later. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:38, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

No problem. I have high hopes that they will rename soon. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:07, 28 February 2022 (UTC

Jack Layton's granddaughters

I think a consensus on who is considered notable should be on Layton's article's talk page. The initial reason for the granddaughters being deleted was due to him not having granddaughters at all as the reason that was originally given was that it was "untrue". I can confirm that Sarah Layton has two daughters (Beatrice and Solace) and Mike Layton has two daughters (Phoebe and Chloe), this is confirmed on his Social media along with Brett Tryon's social media. Can we agree that calling it "untrue" was erroneous without adding them to the relative section until and unless they gain enough notability to have their own article at some future date? Those girls are indeed Jack Layton's grandkids: https://www.instagram.com/mikelaytonto/?hl=en https://www.instagram.com/bretttryon/?hl=en - User:CountingStars500, 18:46, 11 March 2022

@CountingStars500: information on non-notable minors generally should not be included. Non-notable in this context generally means individuals who do not have separate articles about themselves. The usual approach to this, if you have a reliable source (Instagram is not), is to list the notable individual's number of grandchildren (if that's important to the article), but not their names. You should discuss this on the article's talk page, I only reverted because the IP was edit-warring, I don't have any particular feelings about the content other than the policy concerns. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:00, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: I agree, I think they only should be added unless and until they become notable at some future date. I agree with you that Instagram isn't a reliable source; the reason I linked their Instagram pages was to show that they're not fictional children, as was the reason someone gave to the removal of their inclusion. - User:CountingStars500, 19:26, 11 March 2022

::@Ivanvector: I don't understand this insistence that Jack Layton's granddaughters are fictional, that including them is adding fictional relatives. That the users adding them have some "fanfic' of Jack Layton having granddaughters? I can confirm that he does have granddaughters. I doubt that Mike Layton would be pleased to think that people don't think that his daughters are real. Why does it mention them on his Toronto City Council bio if they don't exist? https://mikelayton.to/about-mike/ - User:EmilyPhillipson

@EmilyPhillipson: and CountingStars500: there is no debate about the existence of Layton's granddaughters. The issue is about publishing the names of non-notable minors. Our policy on the matter dictates that we have to strike a balance between enriching knowledge about the article subject and publishing harmful information about other persons. Generally speaking, we interpret this as unless the grandchildren are notable in their own right, we can say how many there are (with a reliable source) but not their names. Also, there is a bright-line rule that any information about minors added without a reliable source must be removed immediately. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I also agree that this discussion should be happening at Talk:Jack Layton. There have been no new discussions on that page in 2 years. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Request for Edit lock

@Ivanvector:, there is no motion confidence poll against the prime minister expected to be done by end of this month. During this period several political alignments are being changed. The page National Assembly of Pakistan has undergone several edits mostly from IP addresses, and everyone is putting their guesses and numbers. I request to lock edit for this page for one week so that situation becomes clear and then this page could be edited as per the new situation. Also, there is a dedicated page for this purpose No-confidence motion against Imran Khan.

Dr Shahzad Bhatti (talk) 20:36, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Can you undelete an image?

Hi I picked you at random because I can't figure out who the deleting admin was, actually I think the deletion was just done by robots (the history was deleted along with the file I guess). Is it even possible to undelete an image and, if so, could you undelete File:Composite_of_two_photos_of_Sara_Ramirez.png please?

So what happened was, at Sara Ramirez there was a dispute about which image of Ramirez to use, a feminine-looking one or one that wasn't (she's bisexual and nonbinary), and to settle it I combined the two photos into one, and that was satisfactory to all.

But then later a driveby anon removed it from the article (with their only edit), possibly for homophobic reasons, and so it was orphaned and automatically deleted (it's fair-use). I didn't notice this in time, nobody did I guess. I don't have the original anymore and I'm not up for making it again even if had the source images. Surely there a remedy for this, the image is kept somewhere? Thanks. Herostratus (talk) 04:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Herostratus, thanks for your message. This file was hosted on Commons and was deleted there. Commons doesn't accept fair-use images so I'd guess it was probably removed for that reason. I would think that a composite which included a non-free image would also not be acceptable here (because there's a free alternative available in the other half of the image) but I can't say for sure. Anyway, you'd have to ask the deleting admin at Commons to restore the image or send you a copy (if that's something they can do, I don't really know). See the deletion log here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:47, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Ah, of course. Thanks. So: I uploaded the file here, and I guess I didn't tag it "do not move to Commons" as I often do, exactly to prevent this sort of thing. (I know it wasn't uploaded to Commons, because I virtually never do that.) So then it gets gets moved to Commons, and then deleted there, and so it's gone from here too. This seems dysfunctional. But that's a different conversation. Thank for the explaino and the timely response! Herostratus (talk) 17:23, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for correcting my attempted corrections, it seems a revert was all that was needed and there was nothing worth saving in that edit. The changes by User:WikiMaster2K15 seem to be deeply flawed, and I even had to warn him against modifying quoted text. I will try to be more careful with my own edits, thanks again for catching my overcorrection. -- 109.76.196.74 (talk) 18:00, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Copy of a deleted page.

Hi, Namaste. I'm Shriram from India. I needed to access history of an article. The link I had bookmarked is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagra_(caste) . This page had also been edited multiple times previously. The information I'm looking for is a Table with 52 things in it. It was on the same page. I didn't know how to access this info or how to request for the same. All I could managed to do is this 'talk thing'. if this is possible somehow, I request you please arrange me the same. Thank you in advance. Shriramsrz (talk) 18:44, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Shriramsrz, thank you for your message. The normal process for getting access to or restoring a deleted article is WP:REFUND, but I'll bypass that for you. I have undeleted the article at User:Shriramsrz/Bagra (caste). I looked through the history of the article and did not see any revision with a table, but you're free to have a look yourself. Please note that the article was deleted because it was believed to be a non-notable topic, and you may not recreate the article unless you can show that the topic is notable through the use of citations to reliable sources, otherwise it will be deleted again (see WP:CSD#G4). Thank you.

@Sandstein: courtesy ping as you were the deleting admin. I assumed you would be okay with this action as the deletion was five years ago and we would consider it a soft delete these days. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:02, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

No problem, thanks. Sandstein 16:47, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind help. You are right, the information I'm looking for is not in the article. But I'm sure that the information with a tabular form was available in an article with the heading 'Bagra or Bagda Cast, or Bagra or Bagaur Brahmin' and the heading of the tabular format was something '52 Gotra'. Now I am helpless because I couldn't find any article with such name on Wikipedia, and I don't know how to search or find a deleted article. All I had was the bookmark. Alas! all in vain. Now I desperately need guidance whether you could help me with that. Anyway, you showed such a kind gesture. Thank you for that. Edit: May be this is the page https://hi.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%A4%AC%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%97%E0%A4%A1%E0%A4%BC%E0%A4%BE Shriramsrz (talk) 06:32, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

@Shriramsrz: you will have to ask an administrator on the Hindi Wikipedia to review that page for you. I only have administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia. The administrator who deleted the page is SM7. They're not very active in English but you could try asking on their Hindi talk page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

@Ivanvector Thank you so very much for your time. I will contact the administrator. Shriramsrz (talk) 01:57, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Revert

Can you revert this or at least bring it back with modifications? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1111766619 98.51.12.186 (talk) 17:40, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

@95.51.12.186: I restored the edit but I'm reviewing and I'm not so sure. The source you provided indicates an "admission date" of March 8, 1955, but various sources I've found have said that Hillery was imprisoned for rape in 1955, but was out on parole before he was convicted of murder and returned to prison in 1962. It needs to be clear in the table that he has not been imprisoned continuously since 1955. The source you provided also doesn't verify any of the details of his conviction, sentence, and re-trial; you need to provide sources for those things as well. I found these sources that will help: [9] [10] [11]. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:47, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2022).

Administrator changes

ScottishFinnishRadish

Staxringold

Ahoerstemeier (deceased) • Ched

Interface administrator changes

Cyberpower678

CheckUser changes

GorillaWarfare

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, consensus was found that if the rationale for a block depends on information that is not available to all administrators, that information should be sent to the Arbitration Committee, a checkuser or an oversighter for action (as applicable, per ArbCom's recent updated guidance) instead of the administrator making the block.
• Following an RfC, consensus has been found that, in the context of politics and science, the reliability of FoxNews.com is unclear and that additional considerations apply to its use.
• Community comment on the revised Universal Code of Conduct enforcement guidelines is requested until 8 October.

Technical news

• The Articles for creation helper script now automatically recognises administrator accounts which means your name does not need to be listed at WP:AFCP to help out. If you wish to help out at AFC, enable AFCH by navigating to Preferences → Gadgets and checking the "Yet Another AfC Helper Script" box.

Arbitration

• Remedy 8.1 of the Muhammad images case will be rescinded 1 November following a motion.
• A modification to the deletion RfC remedy in the Conduct in deletion-related editing case has been made to reaffirm the independence of the RfC and allow the moderators to split the RfC in two.
• The second phase of the 2021-22 Discretionary Sanctions Review closes 3 October.

Miscellaneous

• An administrator's account was recently compromised. Administrators are encouraged to check that their passwords are secure, and reminded that ArbCom reserves the right to not restore adminship in cases of poor account security. You can also use two-factor authentication (2FA) to provide an extra level of security.
• Self-nominations for the electoral commission for the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections open 2 October and close 8 October.
• You are invited to comment on candidates in the 2022 CUOS appointments process.
• An RfC is open to discuss whether to make Vector 2022 the default skin on desktop.
• Tech tip: You can do a fuzzy search of all deleted page titles at Special:Undelete.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Not in the sources cited

These revisions I made were deleted because User:Sundayclose said it was not in the sources cited but I am not sure about that being true could you check that for me and if it IS in the sources cited could you bring it back please? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_youngest_killers&type=revision&diff=1114876159&oldid=1114854589 Railtrailssuck (talk) 19:16, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Hey Ivanvector I just found out that Sundayclose seems to have a history of not looking at the sources in certain edits, or maybe is just indiscriminately reverting a new user and flooding their talk page with inappropriate warnings? I think he just did that to me the second time on the updates I made on Murder of David Dorn.--Railtrailssuck (talk) 19:32, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Rfd close of Bela_River_(disambiguation)

Regarding your close of Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_October_6#Bela_River_(disambiguation), I do not understand why this was closed procedurally. While "disambiguate" is a common RfD outcome, there must be consensus for it, and a single user drafting a disambiguation page below a redirect does not immediately procedurally render a current RfD discussion moot or lead to the redirect becoming a disambiguation page automatically, or require a new discussion at another venue. No user was given the opportunity to comment on Jay's proposal, let alone reach consensus to disambiguate. I request this discussion be reopened, as there was no justification for closing it. Cheers, Mdewman6 (talk) 19:45, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

There was no consensus to disambiguate and I did not want to give the impression that there was. But as I explained in my close, creating the disambiguation addressed the deletion concern, and the discussion was veering off-topic into which topics should be included on it. Or you could think of it this way: the redirect that was the subject of the discussion no longer exists as it's been replaced with a disambiguation page. If you think that disambiguation page should be deleted, you should nominate it at AFD. Or never mind, Joy has already done that; please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bela River (disambiguation). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:58, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

FWIW I also think that you jumped the gun there and forced us to go through another set of procedural hoops that are excessive. If there was no Twinkle, I'd care a lot more, but still, please don't do it in the future. We should not need like half a month of discussion about something this small, it's really making us look so bureaucratic that any newbie would be scared. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:13, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Well frankly if it looks like a duck and makes a sound like a duck .... but point taken. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:14, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Any user is free to create a disambiguation page over a redirect, but not while it is under discussion at RfD. And in this case, a disambiguation page was not created over the redirect, it was drafted under it, which is the usual procedure (as instructed by the RfD template). So the only reason a disambiguation page replaced the redirect is because you closed the discussion and made it so without there being consensus to do so. I been active at Rfd for a while now and I have never seen a drafted disambiguation page lead to a procedural close. But I guess all this really is moot now that it is at Afd. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:17, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm sure even Jay, who closes RfDs often, would agree this close was improper. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:23, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not new to RfD nor to closing discussions, though I've been on hiatus for a while, but believe me that I appreciate your feedback. But I think we can all agree it wouldn't make things any less complicated if I reopened the RfD at this point. I say we let this play out - it appears to be heading for a SNOW close, but the redirect was there for 4 years, it won't hurt anything if this takes another few days. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:02, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree let's let the Afd run its course at this point regarding how best to disambiguate all of these related terms. Thanks, Mdewman6 (talk) 00:49, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I agree with Mdewman6. I'm as surprised by the close as he is! I would suggest re-opening the RfD and closing the AfD procedurally. Also, in this case it's better to have all the discussion at one place than splitting it across forums. Jay 💬 02:53, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Nycole Turmel

Hello, the reason I added "acting" under Leader of the Official Opposition is because due to the NDP holding Official Opposition status at the time the interim NDP leader was by extension the Official Opposition Leader. However, after Layton's death she "officially" assumed the role since he was obviously not coming back. I will not revert your edit unless and until we work this issue out. Just wanted to explain myself. Thank You. 2604:3D09:982:A200:A57A:6360:7DD0:6ABD (talk) 18:10, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

You will need to provide a reliable source which states that Turmel was interim or acting leader during the time that Layton was ill but before his death. Without a reliable source your edit is original research and cannot be published here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:39, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

It says she was on her Parliament of Canada bio. Not original research. 184.71.49.238 (talk) 17:43, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

You keep saying that but you haven't actually provided the source. The source in the article, this one, gives dates of her holding the title of Leader of the Official Opposition as "2011.08.23 - 2012.03.23", i.e. from Layton's death to Mulcair's election. The article also states, "At the time, because Parliament was in summer recess and Layton was hoping to return when Parliament resumed in September, Turmel did not formally assume the role of Leader of the Official Opposition. She only assumed that office upon Jack Layton's death on August 22, 2011 ..." (emphasis added). As for her Parliament bio, you haven't indicated where you actually found it but ourcommons.ca also lists her as Leader of the Opposition starting August 23, 2011 and ending March 24, 2012. If you have a reliable source which contradicts these dates, you will need to provide it, and then we can try to reconcile why they're giving different information and what it means for our article. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:06, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

The NDP was the Official Opposition at the time which made her legally Opposition leader. It’s how the parliamentary system works. Yes, she formally assumed after Layton’s death hence my edit for acting. Regardless if it was summer break she was legally the opposition leader. 2604:3D09:982:A200:19B8:B374:4BA2:E2C (talk) 18:09, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Your insistence that that is the case does not make it so. We have several sources in agreement that Layton was Leader of the Official Opposition up to his death, and none saying Turmel was Leader of the Official Opposition, in any capacity, prior to Layton's death. If you want to challenge these sources you need to provide sources of your own, and you still have not. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:58, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

"Your insistence that that is the case does not make it so." The NDP didn't form the Official Opposition after the 2011 election?

Explain this: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ndp-s-layton-becomes-official-opposition-leader-1.1086887

Nycole Turmel herself said she started as Opposition leader during Layton's leave. "In July 2011 she was appointed Leaderof the Official Opposition and act as such for nine months until the election of Mr. Mulcair.":https://ca.linkedin.com/in/nycole-turmel-97a2b230 and https://www.ndp.ca/news/statement-new-democrat-interim-leader-nycole-turmel. News releases coming out from the Opposition office would be under Turmel's name during Layton's leave.

Not to mention news articles referred to her as Opposition leader prior to Layton's death. 2604:3D09:982:A200:7D18:5D6E:2E2A:8451 (talk) 22:03, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Quote: "Layton's recommendation that Turmel step in as temporary Official Opposition leader was accepted by the NDP caucus and party's executive."

Source: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/turmel-vows-to-stay-on-until-ndp-chooses-leader-1.1023554 2604:3D09:982:A200:7D18:5D6E:2E2A:8451 (talk) 22:10, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2022).

Administrator changes

• Eddie891
• Euryalus
• TheresNoTime

• Alex.muller
• Excirial
• RedWordSmith
• Ron Ritzman
• TheresNoTime
• Stephen

Interface administrator changes

TheresNoTime

TheresNoTime

CheckUser changes

TheresNoTime

Oversight changes

TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

• Consensus has been found in an RfC to automatically place RfAs on hold after one week.
• The article creation at scale RfC has been closed.
• An RfC on the banners for the December 2022 fundraising campaign has been closed.

Technical news

• A new preference named "Enable limited width mode" has been added to the Vector 2022 skin. The preference is also shown as a toggle on every page if your monitor is 1600 pixels or wider. When disabled it removes the whitespace added by Vector 2022 on the left and right of the page content. Disabling this preference has the same effect as enabling the wide-vector-2022 gadget. (T319449)

Arbitration

• Eligible users are invited to vote on candidates for the Arbitration Committee until 23:59 December 12, 2022 (UTC). Candidate statements can be seen here.
• The proposed decision for the 2021-22 review of the discretionary sanctions system is open.
• The arbitration case Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block has been closed.
• The arbitration case Stephen has been opened and the proposed decision is expected 1 December 2022.
• A motion has modified the procedures for contacting an admin facing Level 2 desysop.

Miscellaneous

• Tech tip: A single IPv6 connection usually has access to a "subnet" of 18 quintillion IPs. Add /64 to the end of an IP in Special:Contributions to see all of a subnet's edits, and consider blocking the whole subnet rather than an IP that may change within a minute.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:44, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Block Evader

Could you take a look at this edit? Is it connected to the last user to change the snow color on the page? [12] TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 19:23, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

It definitely is, Yamaguchi先生 got 'em. There's a bit of history at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mikequfv. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 01:48, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Change to the Checkuser team

Following a request to the Committee, the CheckUser permissions of Ivanvector (talk · contribs) have been restored.

For the Arbitration Committee, Primefac (talk) 17:48, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Change to the Checkuser team

Happy Sixth Adminship Anniversary!

Wishing Ivanvector a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Chris Troutman (talk) 19:24, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:17, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Favor

Hello can I ask you to do me a favor please? Ejdnfo (talk) 04:53, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

@Ejdnfo: you certainly can ask. Wikipedia is not a live chat: when you write on someone's talk page, you're leaving them a message, like an email, and they may not see it or be able to respond for some time. I appreciate the courtesy, but if you need something you should just say what it is in your original message. Then, when I'm writing this reply, I can answer your question, instead of now needing to ask you what the question is in the first place.

Let me know what kind of help you're looking for, and I'll help if I can or I'll direct you to a better resource. Thanks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:05, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

This guy reverted my edits as he said the are not in the source cited but I don’t think that is true so can you check it for me please? Ejdnfo (talk) 23:48, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I'll need more info to investigate myself. Which article, and which other editor? In general, if someone reverts your edit and says "not in the source cited" that means they compared the information you changed with the citation provided, and could not verify your edit. If you're sure that the source supports what you changed, the way to resolve the dispute is to start a section on the article's talk page, and explain why you think the source supports your change. The other editor might accept your explanation, or they might challenge you and then you discuss with them what to do next. Let me know which article and I can have a look. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:00, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

This is the revision https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Parabon_NanoLabs&type=revision&diff=1125614756&oldid=1125596233 Ejdnfo (talk) 22:56, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Hi, I think User:RoboCric is a sockpuppet. Can you check? 103.120.39.35 (talk) 15:52, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

No, I can't just check, we call that fishing and it is not allowed. What makes you think they are a sockpuppet? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:45, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: I think Lugnuts is the sockmaster. Lugnuts and RoboCric both are interested in cricket. RoboCric's (RC) first edit [13] is very suspicious, which they made a few minutes after joining. How did they know the use of templates and references? Same edits [14] and [15], [16]. Both used 'Cricinfo' [17] and [18], [19] etc. Lugnuts was blocked for this [20]. That's it. Can you help me by finding more evidences?103.120.39.35 (talk)

While I agree that there are some similarities in their edits, Lugnuts and RoboCric are quite definitively  Unrelated based on checkuser data. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:06, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: hello, Ivanvector. RoboCric can also be a sock of User:A.A Prinon (Cambria Math). Ive found some evidences. Firstly, A.A Prinon (AP) and RoboCric (RC) both are interested in cricket. RC's first edit [21] is very suspicious, which they made a few minutes after joining. How did they know the use of templates and references? Similar edit summaries [22] and [23], [24] and [25], [26] and [27], [28] and [29]. Similar edits: [30] and [31]. Thank you. 103.120.39.35 (talk) 10:24, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@Ivanvector:

There's not enough to go on here. First off, new users know how to use templates and references because of our many guides explaining how to use templates and references, and/or they can copy and paste an example from one of our billions of articles, and WP:AGF is policy so I do not investigate sockpuppetry allegations when that is the only evidence. Furthermore, editors in RoboCric's location with an interest in cricket is like fish with an interest in the ocean - it's expected, and not evidence of anything. The edit summaries are too generic to demonstrate commonality, as is the material being edited. When I checked RoboCric before I did not see any evidence of other accounts using the same connections, and even if there was enough evidence to warrant another check, Cambria Math's most recent accounts are too old to match, or would have shown up already in the earlier check. There's nothing more I can do here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)