Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Hello, hoping you're doing great.

I wrote my draft of the translation of Arise from darkness.

Thanking you in advance take a look.

[[1]]

Stay tuned.

Greetings. --Androveritas (talk) 07:44, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

How about, IVan. Hoping you're doing great. I'll be grateful if you can check the draft translation. Best regards.--Androveritas (talk) 03:11, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello Androveritas. I have reviewed the translation you posted and the situation behind the article protection, and my opinion is that the article cannot be created at this time. The article was previously deleted due to involvement of editors who hide the fact that they are hired to edit, and so they are banned from editing. It appears to me from your user page that you are also connected to the site freelancer.com and a person there who writes Wikipedia articles for hire. If you are being paid to write articles on Wikipedia you are required to say who your employer is or who is paying you for your services. Please see WP:PAID and WP:COIDISCLOSEPAY. If you wish to discuss this matter further please post a note at the conflict of interest noticeboard. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:51, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

How about it, dear Ivan. Hoping you're great.

I deeply regret your resolution to the draft translation.

As you mentioned, at the time I wanted to be taken into account for an editing project on Wikipedia but the project was no longer fulfilled. That's why I put it on my freelancer.com user page.

Even so, I kept making edits on my own on Wikipedia. Such was the case of the draft and editions on the film. I really loved it as I recently visited Detroit and had the opportunity to get to know the place where the voices that were used in the movie were recorded. In addition I would like to have more experience in editions in both languages: English / Spanish. I thought a good way to venture into English Wikipedia was to do the translation precisely from the movie article. For this and other reasons I decided to contact you from the beginning. If I had known from the beginning of the situation so serious about the article I would have given up doing the translation. What I would ask you now, dear Ivan is: Was the article rejected because of the background of the article or because it does not meet the requirements and specifications of Wikipedia? I thank you in advance for your answer, because this will allow me to solve and prevent these situations in the future, while I continue learning in this vast universe great that is Wikipedia. Stay tuned. Best regards. --Androveritas (talk) 21:05, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm curious: why? Vanamonde (talk) 04:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: User:Ivanvector/Drafts are cheap is my summary, plus also WP:NODEADLINE. In a nutshell, when there's absolutely no other reason to delete other than that a page is old is simply unproductive and petty deletionism, and smacks of elitism by "experienced" quality-policing editors. Every time I've asked why old drafts need to be summarily deleted in this way, the only responses I've gotten back have already been covered by other speedy deletion criteria, such as drafts which are unambiguous advertising, drafts which contain copyright violations, drafts which duplicate existing topics, drafts violating WP:BLP, or drafts about topics which don't meet inclusion criteria. All of these can be deleted through extant, mature processes, and all of them can and should be deleted without waiting six months. G13 as a wrapper for these other criteria doesn't work because it tacks on a six month wait for no reason, and G13 as a standalone criterion doesn't work because age is not a deletion criterion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, that's food for thought, thanks. Personally I've always just seen it as a "spring cleaning" criterion, if you will, to throw away the stuff nobody cares about any more; and the rationale behind that I've always assumed is that the drafts clog up the servers; but I might be wrong about that last bit, in which case I imagine the criterion is not needed. What do we know about that? Is the sheer quantity of drafts a problem or not? Vanamonde (talk) 16:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I think that drafts clogging the servers is not a problem. Even if it is, deleting drafts doesn't free up server space, because "deleted" pages are not physically removed from storage. They're simply flagged as deleted in the underlying database, which actually makes the database a few bytes larger (recording deletion information and such). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:47, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Well then (if I may play the devil's advocate just a little, to better understand what you are getting at) surely the principle of U5 also applies to the draftspace, (but U5 would not actually cover the draftspace)? Vanamonde (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. If someone creates a page in Draft: space which is clearly not intended to ever be an article, like it's a listing of players on someone's fantasy football team or just a list of links to random Youtubes, I would personally delete it citing U5 anyway per WP:IAR if I couldn't find one of the general criteria to fit. On the other hand U5 excepts "plausible drafts", because a user creating a genuine draft of what's intended to be an article is not misusing Wikipedia as a web host, it's exactly how Wikipedia's collaborative model is supposed to work. If they contribute a notable topic but they don't stick around to "finish" it, that's not really a problem. It's only a problem because some editors have decided that rather than review these drafts to determine what needs to be fixed or which ones are unsalvageable and should be deleted, a daunting task for sure, they'd rather delete them en masse without any kind of review process at all.

Personally I think a better long-term solution to this issue is to deprecate Draft: space and Articles for Creation entirely, and just rely on WP:NPP to filter new content. If we didn't have draft space, all new articles would land in mainspace, where articles that aren't up to inclusion or content standards are rapidly corrected or deleted. What are we really doing with drafts? We're just making a space for topics which would and should be deleted as articles but can languish forever as drafts, because, I don't know, why? Because a topic that doesn't demonstrate notability now might change a few months from now? If content shouldn't be here in six months, it shouldn't be here now. Besides, it's better to tackle these issues when the articles are new, when the editors are likely to still be around. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:46, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I'd disagree with you about the draftspace/userspace-as-draftspace: it's where I send the unfortunately common newbies with lots of enthusiasm (ie they are upset their article was deleted but want to keep working on it) but little competence (the page is a total mess). Occasionally, something productive comes out of them going through AfC or draftspace. I think I can see what you are getting at with the rest of it, though. If I'm understanding you correctly, what you think we need is to expand the definition of U5 to cover the draftspace, and abolish G13 altogether (and there would be no need for G14). Technically I imagine U5 applied to non-userspace would make a general criterion, so really we should abolish U5 and G13, and write a new G13 covering deletions of improbably drafts, in whichever space they are. If you proposed something like this, I'd probably support. Vanamonde (talk) 09:30, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Please remove the information that he has died until it can be confirmed by a reliable source that's not simply repeating an unreliable Iranian source. It's a matter of a BLP violation. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Settle it on the talk page, please. I'll be there in a few minutes. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jeremy Corbyn. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey there! I just re-launched the WikiProject Investment.

The site has been fully revamped and updated and I would like to invite you the project.

Feel free to check out the project and ping me if you have any questions.

I'd like to invite you to join the Investment WikiProject. There are a lot of Investment related articles on Wikipedia that could use a little attention, and I hope this project can help organize an effort to improve them. So please, take a look and if you like what you see, help get this project off the ground and a few Investment pages into the front ranks of Wikipedia articles. Thanks!

Cheers! WikiEditCrunch (talk) 15:58, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

See User talk:EdJohnston#Page protection request where you have made some range blocks in the past that are relevant. How would you feel about widening your current six-month block from a /19 to a /18 ? I think that would address the issue that was reported about Destruction of Serbian heritage in Kosovo. The IP 91.148.97.128 is just slightly above the top of the /19. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:47, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: I've found that the editor occasionally pops up on an IP which is just slightly outside the range, or a complete outlier IP, in which case it's been my habit to block that particular IP for a short time, rather than expand the range. If the situation has changed and the user is getting outlier IPs regularly then I think we should revisit the range, otherwise I think it's mostly doing the trick as-is, and limiting collateral damage. I wouldn't object if you think expanding now is better, and I won't have time to investigate for the next week or so, so I guess do what you think is best. Cheers. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:29, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2017).

Administrator changes

Nakon • Scott

Sverdrup • Thespian • Elockid • James086 • Ffirehorse • Celestianpower • Boing! said Zebedee

Guideline and policy news

• ACTRIAL, a research experiment that restricts article creation to autoconfirmed users, will begin on September 7. It will run for six months. You can learn more about the research specifics at meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial, while Wikipedia talk:Autoconfirmed article creation trial is probably the best venue for general discussion.
• Following an RfC, WP:G13 speedy deletion criterion now applies to any page in the draftspace that has not been edited in six months. There is a bot-generated report, updated daily, to help identify potentially qualifying drafts that have not been submitted through articles for creation.

Technical news

• You will now get a notification when someone tries to log in to your account and fails. If they try from a device that has logged into your account before, you will be notified after five failed attempts. You can also set in your preferences to get an email when someone logs in to your account from a new device or IP address, which may be encouraged for admins and accounts with sensitive permissions.
• Syntax highlighting is now available as a beta feature (more info). This may assist administrators and template editors when dealing with intricate syntax of high-risk templates and system messages.
• In your notification preferences, you can now block specific users from pinging you. This functionality will soon be available for Special:EmailUser as well.

Arbitration

• Applications for CheckUser and Oversight are being accepted by the Arbitration Committee until September 12. Community discussion of the candidates will begin on September 18.

---

Really - a default keep after no one voted to keep it? Take your pick beween a merge/redirect or delete. I'm sure everyone that voted would support either of those two options that eliminate the page as a stand alone page. Legacypac (talk) 20:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

(For the watchers, Legacypac is referring to this)

Hi Legacypac, it's my pleasure to address your concerns as always. First off, the nomination is confusing: the page at the (2) title was just where the draft ended up after being moved around a bunch of times, it wasn't ever a separate page from the draft, and G6 definitely didn't apply. I don't know if you were trying to nominate a page-move redirect or what you thought was a copy-paste of the draft, but other commenters seem to have chosen to view the nomination as a nomination for the draft itself, which was sensible, and so I evaluated the discussion with that in mind. Next, out of everyone who commented, nearly every editor endorsed the content of the draft existing in some form, one way or another. You were the exception, possibly, except that you seem to have tried to nominate a copy of the page rather than the original draft, so it's not clear. At any rate you seem to have been alright with it as long as it was not at this title (or in the draft space at all), and that seems to be your only concern. So if everyone is okay with it being somewhere, then we need to decide on where. And that's where there's no consensus. We have one "merge to an article", two or three "userfy" endorsements, two "procedural leave it where it is" comments, and one "delete" that was really an endorsement for keeping the content in user space, which became invalid when the target list was deleted. Add to that a well-attended AN thread which explicitly proposed this treatment for Taku's drafts but failed to settle the matter, and there is most certainly not consensus for any treatment here. Thus, all I did was move it back to the original title.

I hope that helps clarify my action, although I suspect you probably don't agree. I won't be able to respond further until some time tomorrow so to save time I'll just go ahead and say that I'm not going to modify this close, and you can proceed accordingly. Cheers. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:38, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate your understanding of a mess. I'll likely proceed with a clean nomination to delete, or failing that userfy. I also noted you deleted the page where all these notes had been consolidated, so that further complicates the arguments and close. Legacypac (talk) 22:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dismissal of James Comey. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

PMC was very right that the Taku MfD closures are long overdue, and closing bitter discussions is not fun. Thanks for stepping up. VQuakr (talk) 19:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

It's quite refreshing to see that you are drafting a RFC on the draft-notability/potential topic.It's but a fact that the close to the prev. RFC was too simplistic. Further, in the event of you not minding anything, I will look forward towards contributing to the drafting.Cheers:) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 08:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

And it's good to see a new ^{[citation needed]} hand at MfD!Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 08:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Neat, I didn't think anyone noticed I had started working on that. There's a number of points I want to address and clarify, and I'm busy at work today and hopefully harvesting over the weekend so I might not get to it for a few days. Keep an eye out I guess! Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

See my recent log for some related CU blocks. I hardblocked an IP for a little as well, and protected a couple of articles. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I saw that, thanks, and thanks for dealing with some trolling here. I forget, do you have CU access? I just posted a note for KrakatoaKatie about this same thing but I think she's away. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Got your mail--sure, but act as you see fit. Yes, I CU-blocked the recent accounts, four or five of them. The trolling is being discussed elsewhere, by people with more hats than me. Take care, Drmies (talk) 18:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

We know that this topic is recorded multiple times in the encyclopedia, so deleting the record of work to date cannot possibly be helpful in building mainspace.  Since you declined to respond to my ping, I'm left to wonder why a respected editor such as yourself participated here.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

The reference to that ping is here.  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 01:15, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Unscintillating, I did see your ping, I'm not ignoring you, I've just had some more serious things to deal with today. Thanks for the reminder anyway. It's near midnight where I am, I'll address your MfD comment tomorrow when I'm wearing pants. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 02:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

You linked this comment on ProudIndian007 investgation.[2] But you should know that older SPI cannot be taken as precedent, because the new SPI not only brought more stronger evidence but resulted in CU investigation and no where CU has disagreed with the connection. Not only this investigation included more evidence but it has also revealed technical match of Jionakeli with sockfarm of ProudIndian007 as well as same edits. This report also includes evidence that these three sock masters 1) ProudIndian007. 2) Anatha Gulati. 3) MehulWB are one sock farm. Creating same promotional articles and editing same Indian subjects making same edits. Salvio Guiliano confirmed that ProudIndian007 and Anatha Gulati are same sockmasters.[3] MehulWB's oldest sock Benfold is the actual sockmaster since that account was created first.

Other CU has found Anatha Gulati's technical details matching with another sockmaster OfficialPankajPatidar as well as same edits.

Most of the evidence came after the previous SPI, that's why it should not be taken as having precedent. For example, what you have to say on Jionakeli saying "I emailed the CU"[4] just like MehulWB "I emailed admins"[5]?

Have a look at his first 4 edits:

• 17:24, 27 March 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+23)‎ . . Template:Violence against Muslims in India ‎ (adding the recent riots in Patan, Gujarat)
• 17:23, 27 March 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+20)‎ . . 2017 Patan riots ‎ (adding template)
• 17:23, 27 March 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+23)‎ . . Template:Riots in India ‎
• 17:21, 27 March 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+871)‎ . . N 2017 Patan riots ‎ (starting)

4 significant edits in nearly 4 minutes. This new account was created on 27 March 2017 and has been always disruptive. Do you recall that Drivarum couldn't be detected by CU[6] and had been blocked after self-admission on email? Jionakeli having  Possible match with ProudIndian007 socks is enough.

Since Jionakeli shares technical match and same edits I am not seeing any reasons not to block him as a sock. @GeneralizationsAreBad: had said "These cases should probably be combined",[7] Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anatha Gulati is still ongoing. That's why your closure seems premature. Capitals00 (talk) 06:12, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

The technical data result was only "possible", and that's not good enough for socks in this area, it's a giant mess of overlaps and intersections and proxies and public institutions and meatfarms. None of the evidence is clear enough for a WP:SOCK block. I'll take a look regarding merging the cases. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: It's a coincidence that I found this similarity but it is too concerning. Anatha Gulati sock voted "Keep" on an Afd[8][9] and also argued, this AFD was also voted "keep" by Jionakeli.[10] Jionakeli mentions "the opposition" and "their own ally" but so does Seruapain also mentions[11] "Indian National Congress" (the biggest opposition) and "Shiv Sena" a known ally of the government. Capitals00 (talk) 13:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I created an LTA page. Feel free. If there's a lot of socks an SPI is better. Destiny Leo (talk) 03:17, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Destiny Leo, I'm not sure what you're trying to do but I don't think LTA is the right venue. Do you mean to suggest that Solitude6nv5 is also editing logged out with the IP 86.26.207.146? If so, the right venue is SPI, where you will need to provide evidence in the form of diffs which show that the two accounts are being used inappropriately. For what it's worth, I don't see it. I'm going to delete the long-term abuse case because I think that it's inappropriate to label an editor this way without any rationale, and we usually only create these cases for our very worst long-term offenders: editors who over a long time are extremely offensive, who repeatedly threaten violence, and who talk at the theatre. Let me know if you need help. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:52, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

What do you guys mean I was abusing sockpuppets? There is such a thing as forgetting to log in. Since I created my actual account, I've only used the IP like twice and both times were accidental. --Solitude6nv5 (talk) 09:59, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@Solitude6nv5: yeah you're fine. Editing while logged out isn't necessarily against policy, only if you do so deceptively or to make it look like you're two different users, and I don't think anyone is suggesting that you did. I can confirm there is no open investigation. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:37, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for taking care of this SPI I just wanted to get some clarification regarding when it is appropriate to request a CU check. I'm understanding I should request it if I have reasonable suspicions of socking, but if I hear loud quacking I can just open the SPI without requesting CU, correct? –FlyingAce^✈hello 19:40, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

We try to be conservative with CheckUser requests because the tool is somewhat invasive, although the data and logs can only be viewed by a handful of trusted users. It's fine to request it if you have a reasonable suspicion, the clerks will either endorse or not. And if you don't request it but we think it would be useful we can add it to the request ourselves. Sockpuppetry is usually determined based on behaviour, but when we can't quite make a connection that way then we request (or endorse a request for) technical evidence as a supplement. The only real exception is that CheckUsers normally won't check a registered account against an IP editor because doing so could reveal the account's IP address, or if an account hasn't edited within the last roughly 90 days because the data is only kept for about that long. But if a case is so obvious that it can be confirmed without CheckUser then we prefer not to check, because it would be unnecessarily intrusive. It's really up to clerk discretion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:49, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Gotcha. Will keep it in mind next time I need to submit an SPI. Thank you! –FlyingAce^✈hello 20:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I saw that you moved this page. Would you mind doing so with that of mine per G6: SPI filed in error under an innocent name? You see that in contrary to what you guys did on the ANI, I tried to be cool as I was fully sure to be innocent. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Mhhossein, I had a look and I'll consult with the clerks but I don't think I can delete the case under your name. There's an investigation in the archive that was cleared for a CU check, so it could be breaking things to remove it, in logs I don't have access to. Also, there is behaviour in that investigation (you and the other account apparently editing each other's comments) which is usually pretty good evidence of sockpuppetry, but your explanation of what happened was reasonable. You may not want my advice after the thread at ANI but I'd suggest you keep this. Then if anyone were to try to accuse you of sockpuppetry again, you can demonstrate a history of having been investigated and found innocent. I'll leave that with you: if you want to pursue deletion I'll take it up with the clerks (and can't guarantee anything but I'll try). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

The comments at ANI was of course not energizing. I'll go by your advice at the moment and will tell you in future if I changed my mind (and still there was a chance). Thank you for looking into the case. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• Sorry to say that, I felt an unpleasant experience working with you, unlike many other cases I had during the years of editing. Btw, you ignited the debate, when I was going to settle it down saving time and energy for every one. Moreover, it seemed that discovering a puppet was completely without merit (I know it's not though). --Mhhossein ^talk 13:58, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help -- I really appreciate it. I just heard from Arbcom and replied that I'll do anything asked of me to confirm my identity and get this matter resolved. Really surprised though by the reaction of those editors. One in particular can't seem to let this go. As to the issue of whether the exchange was libelous, as I've now stated repeatedly. I was decidedly NOT making a legal threat. I had asked the opinion of the lawyer in the office next to mine. In his opinion, the comments were "possibly actionable." Repeating that opinion is not the same thing as threatening litigation, even if that outraged editor would like to think so. -- Franz Lidz FranzLidz (talk) 00:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that I'm not looking for "hagiography", as one editor speculated. I haven't once mentioned the entry itself, or weighed in on any of the recent editorial changes. What concerned me was a specific section of the Talk page and its self-congratulatory Columboisms. If, as I requested, the offending copy is now blanked and archived in some non-public corner of the Web, I'm a happy camper. And if that's the case, I'd like to withdraw my request for deletion. Thanks for the time, patience and consideration of your editors. Or at least most of them.FranzLidz (talk) 01:34, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi FranzLidz, I'm happy that your concerns were resolved. As I mentioned elsewhere and you might not have seen, "courtesy blanking" removes the section from the most recent revision, which is what is indexed by search engines, although as far as I know talk pages are not indexed anyway. The blanked content is available for viewing in the revision history of the page, which is important for our editorial license, for accountability, and possibly for future administrative purposes. Under current practice I don't have the authority (or the ability, even) to remove that revision history. We do have a separate policy for removing revision history from view altogether, called oversight, but that is only used in cases of much more serious misconduct than occurred here: overt harassment and threats of violence, for example, or editors posting their own or someone else's private contact information (because it's easily abused). Anyway, since it seems you don't want to pursue deletion of the page further and it seems like there are enough disinterested editors opposed to it anyway, I'll go ahead and withdraw the request.

If you would like to contribute to the article you're welcome to do so. We normally ask editors who are subjects of articles here not to edit directly, but to make suggestions on the article's talk page which will then be reviewed by other editors. If you like, see our plain and simple guide to conflicts of interest. If you have any other questions please feel free to post here - I am available intermittently though I do get an email when a message is posted here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ivan Greg, thank you for your comments at my RfA. I hope that I'll be able to answer your concerns with my actions rather than my words, since those managed to confuse just about everyone. If it makes you feel better - which perhaps it won't - I am not completely opposed to using the block button in any situation, I'm just going to be extremely conservative with it until I get some more experience. Cheers, ansh666 00:04, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ansh666: that's a very reasonable and wise approach. Take care. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I saw you did one I was going to request, this needs the same. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 10:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Which reminds me of an email I must bump, sorry about that. Doug Weller talk 10:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I realize the issue with the dogfighting. What about the vinča though ? And my source which states Serbians are genetic relatives off Vinča? As well I noticed an unsolved issue regarding Constantine the Great on the talk page. Any way you could clarify or give input on the issue at hand ?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:8388:1807:7200:288c:ebc2:398e:7ea5 (talk) 14:10, 24 September 2017‎

I see that you're not only deleting the prods in the various article (which is your right) but also the tags re: original research and sourcing. The fact is, the election numbering is determined by the election authority in the province and the claim that, say, 7th New Brunswick general election can refer to both the 1819 and 1890 general elections is original research. Moreover, there is only one blue link in the articles in question meaning that a disambiguation page is inappropriate according to WP:D. Nixon Now (talk) 16:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I responded on your talk page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes sorry, we crossed wires. I agree redirects/hatnotes make sense but I didn't want to go ahead and do a bunch of redirects without at least some agreement whether by Prod or otherwise to delete and/or redirect articles. So how should we proceed? Just implement redirects or discuss it somewhere first? Nixon Now (talk) 16:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Still working on it. I think what I'm going to do is start a discussion at one of the Wikiprojects over how to proceed, and get consensus before doing anything because it's a lot of button-pushing. Stand by, I'll ping you or leave you a note when I've got something. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2017).

Administrator changes

Boing! said Zebedee • Ansh666 • Ad Orientem

Tonywalton • AmiDaniel • Silence • BanyanTree • Magioladitis • Vanamonde93 • Mr.Z-man • Jdavidb • Jakec • Ram-Man • Yelyos • Kurt Shaped Box

Guideline and policy news

• Following a successful proposal to create it, a new user right called "edit filter helper" is now assignable and revocable by administrators. The right allows non-administrators to view the details of private edit filters, but not to edit them.
• Following a discussion about mass-application of ECP and how the need for logging and other details of an evolving consensus may have been missed by some administrators, a rough guide to extended confirmed protection has been written. This information page describes how the extended-confirmed aspects of the protection policy are currently being applied by administrators.

Technical news

• You can now search for IP ranges at Special:Contributions. Some log pages and Special:DeletedContributions are not yet supported. Wildcards (e.g. 192.168.0.*) are also not supported, but the popular contribsrange gadget will continue to work.

Arbitration

• Community consultation on the 2017 candidates for CheckUser and Oversight has concluded. The Arbitration Committee will appoint successful candidates by October 11.
• A request for comment is open regarding the structure, rules, and procedures of the December 2017 Arbitration Committee election, and how to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

---

Sorry, I just posted this [12] but - after reading it - I'm worried it came out a little "snippy" which was not my intent. I just thought, in all the back and forth, you might have misread something and wanted to clarify. Anyway, wanted to apologize if it sounded aggressive (I'm traveling and editing WP from a phone which is a ... challenge!). DocumentError (talk) 00:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

If the content is nonsense or is unlikely to be true. Be bold and delete it! Do not tag controversial, poorly sourced claims about living people. Remove them immediately!

Are you for real? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.216.133 (talk) 15:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Citation not needed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.216.133 (talk) 15:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources

Is this of any importance? Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources

You are controlling Wiki pages based on what you deem can be said and can not be said rather than the wiki policy now!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.216.133 (talk) 15:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Ignorance Polite observations about oppression dynamics

Are you going to talk or just take action of locking and not talking just because you feel you have the power to control a public domain wiki? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.216.133 (talk) 15:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't know where you're pulling those quotes from, but among other things:

• You are repeatedly removing large blocks of content without explaining why (see WP:REMOVAL). Your confusing edit summary about missing references does not explain why you removed any particular large block of text from the article.
• When other users objected to your seemingly random removal of content by restoring it, you simply removed it again, but still didn't explain why. See WP:EDITWAR.
• Kalki is not a living person, and the biographies of living persons policy which allows for immediate removal of controversial information does not apply to this article.
• The page is now protected to prevent your continuing disruption. See WP:DE and WP:POINT.

If there is something specific that you think should not be in the article, it is up to you to start a discussion on the article's talk page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Can you provide or see the source? NO? then revert to my edit and then let's talk about it! If no source is fine then I will edit your subjects and do not remove my source less edits!

I don't even know what it is you think needs a source, you're just deleting huge parts of the article. Anyway, you should be asking these questions at the article's talk page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't even know what it is you think needs a sourceItalic text REALLY!!! Why don't you read the page instead of helping out a fellow controller!

The article's talk page, which you still have yet to edit, is located here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

The article KickassTorrents had its protection lifted today, and it didn't take long for Guril4 to turn up and alter the URL. You've got to admire the persistence here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Alex Shih already got to it. Protection on the other two comes off tomorrow, we'll see how that goes. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Please could you protect KickassTorrents and IsoHunt again? We've got the same moron back already. It may also be necessary to blacklist the links so that they won't save if attempts are made to add them to the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:09, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

(talk page gnome) Proposed at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Torrent_socks. —PaleoNeonate – 07:31, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

@Ianmacm and PaleoNeonate: Alex Shih got 'em already, again. I added a padlock to isoHunt, and I see you've already requested adding the urls to the blacklist. I have a history of messing that up so I'll leave that to someone who knows what they're doing. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:28, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Super, we'll see what the blacklist managers decide... —PaleoNeonate – 12:41, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Checkusers and Checkuser clerks,

The Anti-Harassment Tools team is seeking input about building the Interaction Timeline feature.

We’re inviting you to join the discussion because you use similar tools such as the Editor Interaction Analyser and User compare report during sockpuppet investigations.

You can leave comments on the on wiki discussion page or send an email to the Anti-Harassment Tools team.

For the Anti-Harassment Tools team SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 19:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

Hello. I just noticed your reply to my opposition of this user's RfA, and I would've replied to your question on the original RfA had I seen it and it was still open (I was not watching the RfA). The reason why I said WP:NOTNOW was because Kostas did not clearly show the experience that is expected of most candidates. When I see a candidate for adminship, I first typically look for whether they've been around long enough, usually over a year. I first noticed something was up when he mentioned he was only around for about 7 months, which to me showed little experience on the encyclopedia. Then I noticed the reasons for Oppose; per TheGracefulSlick, Kostas was given advice to wait at least a year to which he did not take and instead decided to nominate himself. Which I had used to state my opposition, but failed to mention. I apologize for this response being so late, but I hope it answered your question. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 23:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jd22292, thanks for your reply here. It's of little consequence now anyway, everyone seems to have mostly agreed that Kostas hasn't been around long enough by current standards of adminship. I apologize for singling out your comment, that's not really appropriate of me. Cheers. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Hamtechperson 06:22, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

See [13]== user Disranter ==

The context of this is a series of edits made by Narwhal2 (talk · contribs) on the 8th and 9th where he added several references to the fringe self-published author Ralph Ellis, and when I removed them went off to various forums complaining about me. Note that he has uploaded File:Baalbek- largest stone.jpg where he identifies himself as Ralph Ellis. 4 days later along comes Disranter (talk · contribs) reinstating an edit Narwhal2 had made (as an aside, the edit was basically redundant as the material is elsewhere in the article). He's been edit-warring to get it back and attacking me at Talk:Joseph of Arimathea, eg "Your fame is spreading though the blogsphere as an opponent of historical research, and there are many who are not impressed." (very ironic) and at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests. This is pretty clearly WP:DUCK *as well as WP:COI. I'm too involved to block him myself. Dougweller (talk) 18:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

•  Confirmed the following are socks of one another:

• Disranter (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Arnatorim (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Samosterat (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Hoogson (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Narwhal2 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Tiptoety ^talk 18:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd wondered about Hoogson but hadn't connected him with Ellis. Dougweller (talk) 18:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you please create a new case and merge them? Thanks. Doug Weller talk 07:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I don't think a merge is quite the right approach here since this was handled at ANI and no prior SPI was created, but I'll see that these accounts are added to the current SPI archive somehow. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

See [14]. Does that suit? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

That's exactly what I hoped you would do. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 14:43, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Timeline of the Trump presidency, 2017 Q3. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

seems to have fallen sloppy dead. I don't see in listed on the main page either.Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:30, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dlohcierekim! The SPI looks to have been created only the day before your note here, while (regrettably) we're still dealing with untouched cases from August. It is in the list of open cases, it's just way down the list. It's possible you need to purge your cache to see the table updated. I'll take a look at the case. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:52, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, never mind, it's been handled already. Go team! Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:54, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ivan, I was just stopping by to apologize for being unnecessarily discourteous to you at Headbomb's RfA. While we disagree on perspective, there was no need for me to attack your adminship status while dissenting. Oh and thanks for your helpfulness at Kostas' RfA. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Love it. EEng 14:05, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ivanvector. Unfortunately, I'm still being harassed by Dr.K. regarding the SPI case. I can remember that, in your "exasperated reply", you urged both of us to finish every thing there. Also, you warned Dr.k that his continued questioning of me at the ANI and on my talk page flied directly in the face of your warning to me not to comment on the sockpuppetry issue any further. Now, after more than a month, he has revived the case by asking me to apologize to them for "insinuating" that they were "sockpuppets". After I reminded him of your warnings, he again asked me to apologize to them and said that he was not prohibited to comment on the after the ANI thread was closed. I quoted your comment regarding "his continued questioning of me at the ANI and on my talk page", but he interpreted your comments to conclude that "Now the thread is finished and [he is] allowed to comment" and that he could still repeat his apology request. Note that I was not talking about the SPI case and he just revived it. Per your warning, I avoided commenting on the case from the very beginning. I would like to know if I have understood your warning correctly or Dr.K. is free to repeat his apology request regarding the SPI case for ever? Thanks. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:33, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Mhhossein - Just leave things alone and stop complaining about harassment. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:14, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Ivanvector - I was going to tell you that scronning the garflebag is not a good idea because it distracts the toves, and the bandersnatch may show up and burble. However, that might raise more questions than it answers. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:14, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

@Ivanvector I think your intervention will settle down the tensions recently Dr.K. tried to raise, while I had asked him to finish everything. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:53, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Ivanvector - If you are looking at this, These diffs by Mhhossein are instructive of the pattern. Some other participants perhaps should've been more concise in response to this. Diffs: Talk page in Ali_Khamenei - [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] DRN - [21] [22] [23] User talk page: [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] (the claim this was an accusation by Dr.K. of Mhhossein being a shared account, prompted my response that this was a request to stop the use of the "royal we" - I wouldn't have responded on the user TP otherwise).Icewhiz (talk) 06:57, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am at a loss to explain Mhhossein's latest post on this talkpage. Mhhossein states just above: ...while I had asked him to finish everything. He did no such thing. He finished his statement to me in a question: Did you just notice that I was careful enough and said "dr.k. was probably wrong" while I could...?, in response to which I asked Mhhossein if he could care to explain why he called Robert "so-called Robert". To call this simple enquiry on my part as "raising tensions", is indicative of the battle attitude and lack of accountability of this user. He then reverted my question claiming "harassment".

By the way, Icewhiz's first diff above, proves that Mhhossein adopted the royal "we" deliberately, not as a language quirk, but to make himself appear as speaking on behalf of all wiki editors: You simply let your self making baseless and bizarre accusations and will get offended when asked to "write more concise to us [WP editors]"? I suggest you not to comment on every single part of my comment. Thanks. So he thinks he can issue commands to me on behalf of all [WP editors], as he puts it, and then instructs me: I suggest you not to comment on every single part of my comment. Thanks., trying to stifle discussion and limit my ability to discuss all the points he raises. In all my years here, I have never encountered this level of arrogance.

In addition, a couple of days ago, he was still defending his use of "software movement", while making the same bizarre request for me not to reply to all of his comments: Be civil please. Just look what a mess the TP has become. It's really not needed to comment on every single parts of others' comments. This way, the consensus building procedure will become difficult., talking about consensus on text that is incomprehensible in English, days after DRN had already told him that much. I think this disruption by Mhhossein has to stop. Dr. K. 14:38, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Addendum - it is one thing to WP:AGF with a non-native English speaker who acknowledges the situation (e.g. Saff V. on the same content dispute was polite and helpful in terms of communicating - bringing some sources, elucidating part of the unclear text). But when you have a user repeatedly stating language is not a problem (e.g. [29]), while making comments such as My advice for the so called "Robert" was clear enough [30] or interpreting these statements by Dr.K. [31][32] as "There you accused me of possibly having a shared account and etc" [33] as well as repeatedly insisting there is no problem (repeated page edits, talk, and DRN) with disputed content in Khamenei - AGFin becomes difficult.Icewhiz (talk) 15:06, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: Actually, in one of your diffs, Mhhossein turns the tables on Robert McClenon, accusing him that he has difficulty understanding [Mhhossein's] comments, while calling him "so called "Robert"" and attacking his position as a DRN volunteer: My advice for the so called "Robert" was clear enough. If he has difficulty understanding editor's comment, then he certainly is not a good candidate for DRN and so on. So much for dispute resolution on en.wiki involving patently incomprehensible text. Dr. K. 16:11, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Also this reply to Robert:

Things are becoming much more interesting! Your language problem is very serious, if you don't understand my comments. Then please ask others with an enhanced level of the English language to explain them. If you have problems with understanding such level of English, you can't be editing in an collaborative Encyclopedia where users from around the world are editing and having contributions. Said that, you don't seem to be a good candidate to resolve disputes at the DRN, where those international users may be involved. -Mhhossein talk 20:01, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Dr. K. 16:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Ivanvector, User:Dr.K., User:Icewhiz - Is it possible to simply ignore him? I think that is the next step. If he then persists in edit-warring his incomprehensible text, then, and only then, I think that a request to WP:ANI for a competency block will be in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:56, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@Robert: Sure Robert. I agree with your suggestion. In any case, Mhhossein may be visiting ANI on his own in the future. See his messages on the talkpage of @Winged Blades of Godric and Godric on Leave: where he accuses Godric of polemic statements, because Godric quoted Salman Rushdie on religion. Dr. K. 18:02, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@Dr.K. et al.: Regarding the use of "us": "Just, enough of this." Stop "repeatedly haranguing" me. @Dr.K.: You agree with what? You've already acted against the permanent warning from the previous ANI, which you misquoted to show was not permanent. By the way, You're not trying to bait them, are you? "Finish every thing," I'm saying now!--Mhhossein ^talk 18:13, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

• I also forgot to mention Mhhossein's harassment on my talkpage, as he came after me, after I reported the copyvio of the first version to Diannaa: Removal of sourced and clean content As I explained here in details, you have removed well-sourced contents having nothing to do with copyvio or grammar, from the article. At least, the first and the last sentence was fully clean from those allegations (refer to my explanations). --Mhhossein talk 18:57, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

  Three days later, he came to my talkpage again, this time to template me for removing the incomprehensible text from the article: Stop it, plz You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war... --Mhhossein talk 17:58, 17 October 2017 (UTC).

  This has been an extensive and extended multi-sided campaign by Mhhossein defending incomprehensible text for weeks and attacking any perceived opponent and not accepting any arguments against his position. In the over 11 years I have been an editor here, I have not witnessed such sustained and wide-ranging WP:BATTLE mentality in another editor, especially in defence of incomprehensible text. In an article covered by ARB/PIA, this unsanctioned campaign makes a mockery of the DS system. Dr. K. 05:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

  Regarding ARB/PIA - a recent AE on Ali Khamenei in September by Mhhossein (which I replied to requesting a boomerang due to edit warring by Mhhossein - including 1RR vios): AE against Psychonbot by Mhhossein on Ali Khamenei - ended with this being non-actionable as Iranians are not Arab (and this was on nuclear related issues). Coupled with ARB/PIA warning on the page itself still being there - this is confusing. Frankly I think it should be under some DS - but it is not clear it is (beyond BLP). Mhhossein has also taken to my talk page e.g. - [34] [35] [36] [37] (all this following interaction mainly on Khamenei and little else).Icewhiz (talk) 06:01, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

  Yes, I saw that. It is based on the technicality that Iranian politics are not covered by the ARB/PIA regime, unless they pertain to the Arab-Israeli conflict. As far as Mhhossein's warnings on your talkpage, that's sadly par for the course for that account. It is part of his multifaceted campaign against his perceived opponents. Dr. K. 06:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

@Dr.K. and Icewhiz: my office ran out of coffee and the heat isn't working (in Canada in October) so you may find my replies uncharacteristically blunt today. I observe that Mhhossein hasn't edited Ali Khamenei in 10 days and was participating in discussion regarding his edit up to three days ago, and otherwise his only interactions with you have been in response to your continued dragging him through the mud for things that happened a month or more ago. Yes, there's obviously a language barrier here, and edits like this one mocking him for his difficulty comprehending your objection haven't been helpful to the discussion at all; frankly this response was entirely appropriate. All I see here is an editor trying to move away from a conflict with two other editors chasing him around trying to get him in trouble for stuff that's already been dealt with. Go do something else. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:47, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I wanted to give you some background, given that Mhhosssein came to your talkpage, while we were talking on his talkpage, and complained that @Ivanvector I think your intervention will settle down the tensions recently Dr.K. tried to raise, while I had asked him to finish everything. and I thought I was free to respond here. I also wanted to add more background to the latest incident regarding Khamenei, that you may have missed, and to address your characterisation on Mhhossein's talkpage of "haranguing" which you based on Mhhossein not understanding English. Instead I am additionally accused that I was "chasing around" Mhhossein.

I am also accused that I was "mocking" Mhhossein when I asked him: Again, what is software movement? How does software move? Up, down, sideways?. This is a very unfair characterisation and you missed the context surrounding this response. I had already tried two more times prior to that, to explain to both Mhhossein and Saff V. that software movement was incomprehensible. See very polite response 1: diff "What is software movement? How does software move? Also the description..."], only to be informed by Mhhossein that he has no time to read my response. Despite that dismissive answer, I then numbered my examples to humour Mhhossein's request. Only when Saff V., an even-more English language-challenged user, added more irrelevant responses, did I add the "software up, down response hoping that it could trigger some understanding to these language-challenged editor(s). Don't forget, I had to content, not with one, but two, language-challenged editors, one worse than the other. Add to that, the lengthy nature of the dispute, over what normally would have been no contest at all, to anyone with any competence in the English language, and perhaps you can see my predicament. Far from mocking them, I asked this question, just in case he would get the semantic meaning after more subtle attempts had failed. You obviously chose the worst-possible interpretation for that response, which is your prerogative, but that does not make it either correct or fair.

It has been hard enough communicating with this aggressive editor who is also language-challenged, without my attempts being unfairly characterised by you and being met by rude responses. It also makes it difficult, if not impossible, to get involved with language-challenged users who push incomprehensible text into articles. You don't seem to realise the amount of time and effort it took on my part to prevent this incomprehensible text from entering this article, given the aggressive opposition I encountered. Given your continuing unfair characterisations of my efforts, I now realise that it was actually a waste of time. I will not repeat this again. Dr. K. 16:23, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Just review the comment! You are using inappropriate terms such as "aggressive editor", "one worse than the other", "language-challenged" (4 times), to justify your "mocking" me. I'm not going to make the thread lengthier than this, but this "very polite response" contains the "unnecessarily rude" "royal we", hence not that polite you think. Also, how can you deny that you don't "chase me around"? Hey, it's very simple: You were not innocent, I was not neither (I said it 2 days ago). I said what I thought would be beneficial, the rest depends on you! --Mhhossein ^talk 20:04, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Neither you, nor Saff V, speak or understand English competently. That has been determined by multiple users. To say that one user is worse than the other, in English comprehension, is not an insult. It is a statement of fact. I have Godric's talkpage watchlisted and when I saw you demanding from him to remove Rushdie's statement from his userpage, I felt that I had to respond. That's not "following you around". As far as the rest of your allegations such as Ivanvector's expression "unnecessarily rude" that you keep repeating like a broken record, I have addressed them with Ivanvector just above, so I will not respond further. If you are unable to locate my response, I can't help you. Dr. K. 20:24, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

"Over stating" some facts can turn into ad hominen comments and/or personal attacks. I did not say you were following me around because you responded on Godric's TP. Rather you provided a diff to Godric's TP (which was entirely unrelated to our discussion) in order to let every body know that there was a chance of my going to ANI. That is certainly singling your chasing me around. You were told two at least two times not to do so. The horse is already dead and I can't help you anymore, too. In fact, no one can help you unless you accept your faults which were correctly mentioned by Ivanvector. Note that I accepted my own faults before suggesting you. Regards, --Mhhossein ^talk 04:58, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

But Wait - There's More - It Gets Worse

Sockpuppets showed up at Mhhossein's talk page and made remarks that have been redacted. More later. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:06, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: that is odd. I'm interested to hear your take on those edits, although I'm not going to spend much mental energy on them otherwise. Sockpuppets gonna sockpuppet. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:30, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what is going on. I know that Mhhossein is still being stubborn. The comments by the sockpuppets made legal threats against Mhhossein, but have been redacted. I don't know whether they are in fact supporting the Iranian government and trying to suppress criticism, or whether they only appear to be supporting the Iranian government and are trying to confuse, or what. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Givenshelfout. I still think it is best to ignore Mhhossein and his ranting. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I think you'd better review this comment because it applies to you, too. You sent this warning reading "Just leave the Khamenei article and other editors alone," while my last edit dates back to 10 days ago. That would be grate, very grate, If you could just ignore me. Btw, I don't find "ranting" a civil word (it might be language barrier!). Regards. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:24, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, well. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: You were supposed to ignore me but it seems that you are still continuing the harassment. Terms such as "Unreasonable or disruptive" along with the rest of your comment, such as the "good hand-bad hand" thing, was not constructive at all. Can you please act in accordance with Ivanvector's comment and ignore me? --Mhhossein ^talk 17:55, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Mhhossein - It is a bad guest who wanders around in someone else's kitchen berating the other guests. "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." But that is an American quote. If you think that I am harassing you, you can try a conduct forum such as WP:ANI after reading the boomerang essay. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:00, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Mhhossein: you should probably walk away from this now. Robert McClenon's comment that you linked above is not harassment, he just mentioned you in a comment about whoever it was who threatened you a few days ago, and that's a problem that some of us would like to get to the bottom of. I get that you have some history with a couple other editors in this subject area and they've made a bad job of trying to work with you (and you with them) but that's not a good reason to assume that everyone else who mentions your name is trying to get you in trouble. Robert in particular has been very civil and polite with you throughout this discussion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:14, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I was just going. But I had never been involved in any "good hand-bad hand" scenarios. I know that he was saying that "the other side" was probably trolling, but AFAIK "good hand-bad hand" is usually a scheme devised by the two sides cooperatively! They were just trolling and I don't know about them. Regards. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:21, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Operation Anubis. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

For some reason, I came into this guy's crosshairs about Oct. 15(?), 2017. For that day, he reverted almost everything I did in diverse parts of the encyclopedia. I couldn't edit. Anything. I gave up for about 2 weeks. I honestly do my best to contribute. If I err, someone inform me, and explain. I cannot edit war. I don't care that much, waste of time. I notice you reverted his changes, and restored my work. Hurray! I now check everything of mine he touched - all ok. I will not again touch those things - he has some kind of vendetta against me for certain topics, and I do not know him at all. He should not be able to "own" some articles, which he appears to do. Anybody differ with him, he reverts. He should be banned forever, for harrassment. Thanks for your attention. Sbalfour (talk) 03:34, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Sbalfour, I'm sorry that you were bullied off the site, but I'm glad you've decided to return (at least I hope that's the case). I think you can rest assured that the user who reverted all of your edits wasn't targeting you specifically, some people are just blithering assholes. Unfortunately this particular blithering asshole does have a habit of repeatedly targeting the same users over and over, but it's very easy for someone like me to undo that damage. If this user crosses your path again, don't take it personally, just leave me a note and I'll fix it, or if I'm not around a report to WP:AIV should do the trick. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:22, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I edited the message you left at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mokezhilao. The {{SPIarchive notice}} template displays the message automatically, no need to write it manually. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:23, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

uf, uf. I just noticed this is not so simple. You archived the case and then just redirected it to another case. That is not how it should be done. If two cases turn out to be the same, we perform WP:history merge and also merge the related archives. The way you did it is wrong becaouse the case history and the archives are split in two different places and hard to navigate. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:29, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@Vanjagenije: yeah, it's a mess, but see Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Archives/Archive19#Proposed unusual multi-case merge. Merging the histories would be an absolute mess, so I did this instead. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:38, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2017).

Administrator changes

Longhair • Megalibrarygirl • TonyBallioni • Vanamonde93

Allen3 • Eluchil404 • Arthur Rubin • Bencherlite

Technical news

• The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team is creating an "Interaction Timeline" tool that intends to assist administrators in resolving user conduct disputes. Feedback on the concept may be posted on the talk page.
• A new function is now available to edit filter managers that will make it easier to look for multiple strings containing spoofed text.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors will be invited to submit candidate statements for the 2017 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 12 until November 21. Voting will begin on November 27 and last until December 10.
• Following a request for comment, Ritchie333, Yunshui and Ymblanter will serve as the Electoral Commission for the 2017 ArbCom Elections.

Obituaries

• The Wikipedia community has recently learned that Allen3 (William Allen Peckham) passed away on December 30, 2016, the same day as JohnCD. Allen began editing in 2005 and became an administrator that same year.

---

Hello Ivanvector, I have this article in my watchlist and since I noticed there was a recent edit, I went back to it and realised I had left a note on it's talk page some time ago. This article was created by a user who was blocked and who created many articles, most of them without references, etc. If you read the article on his supposed father, Martín Alfonso de León which I created and referenced, you can see that this Gil Alfonso de León never actually existed and is an invention. I believe the article should be deleted but not sure how to go about it (outright deletion or consensus). Could you help, please? Many thanks, Maragm (talk) 07:24, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Another candidate for deletion would be Pedro Gil de Mogollón. In the article it says that he was Lord of Mogollón in 1320 and this is impossible chronologically if his father was in 1229 in the conquest of Cáceres. Maragm (talk) 11:28, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Maragm! I don't have access to the source provided for those two articles, do you? Could it be that the blocked user has just made an error in Gil Alfonso's date of birth and parentage, but the rest is accurate? If you would like to nominate these articles for deletion the instructions are at WP:AFD or let me know and I can help. I've also just noticed there are two articles on Pedro Gil de Mogollón (the other is Pedro Gil de Mogollón, Lord of Arroyo del Peche), both created by the same user. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:39, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Never mind, those last two are different individuals. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll follow the instructions for deletion or I may just erase the erroneous info. Maragm (talk) 16:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, VJ-Yugo is pushing their POV again. Serbian Military articles, edited Armed Forces of Serbia and Montenegro in the very first day, a blocked sock Hrvoje1389 edited the same article some days earlier. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ktrimi991, thanks for letting me know. Unfortunately I think you may be mistaken: no blocked editors have edited Armed Forces of Serbia and Montenegro since 2013, Hrvoje1389 never edited it, and it doesn't seem like any of the VJ-Yugo IP ranges have ever edited that article either. Furthermore Viatzeslav's account was created several days before there was any investigation going on, so it seems unlikely they're a sockpuppet. Please do let me know if you see anything else, or just report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/VJ-Yugo. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh, actually the article is Equipment of the Serbian Army, not Armed Forces of Serbia and Montenegro. My mistake. The later article was the one where I noticed Viatzeslav for the first time. Since Viatzeslav is a very new account, I decided to not let them know about my suspicion. Viatzeslav account made their first edit in the same day Hrvoje1389 was blocked, and like VJ-Yugo and socks has edited Serbian Military articles in a disruptive way and violated 3RR yesterday without a single effort to explain their removal of sourced content, that is why I connected Viatzeslav with VJ-Yugo after I had a look at their history. I will keep an eye on Viatzeslav and inform you of anything new. Cheers. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:10, 8 November 2017 (UTC)