| Revision as of 19:40, 29 December 2016 editIvanvector (talk | contribs)Checkusers, Administrators52,274 edits *burrp*← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 21:14, 12 January 2025 edit undoIvanvector (talk | contribs)Checkusers, Administrators52,274 edits →IP sock puppet evasion: re | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{ |
{{nobots}} | ||
| {{trout me}} | {{trout me}} | ||
| {{User:Ivanvector/Protection notice}} | |||
| {{Ombox | |||
| | type = speedy | |||
| | image = ] | |||
| | text = {{large|'''SCAM WARNING!'''}} | |||
| If you have been contacted or solicited by anyone asking for payment to get a draft into article space, improve a draft, or restore a deleted article, such offers are <u>'''not legitimate'''</u> and you should contact '''''{{no spam|paid-en-wp|wikipedia.org}}''''' immediately. Please see ] for more information. | |||
| | style = border-width: 1px; | |||
| }} | |||
| <!-- User talk header added by subst'ing the {{Usertalksuper}} template, modifying with new instructions. --> | <!-- User talk header added by subst'ing the {{Usertalksuper}} template, modifying with new instructions. --> | ||
| {{tmbox |image=] |text='''''Welcome to my talk page!'''''<br> | {{tmbox |image=] |text='''''Welcome to my talk page!'''''<br> | ||
| Line 8: | Line 16: | ||
| * Thanks for stopping by! | * Thanks for stopping by! | ||
| }} | |||
| }}<!-- from 'subst:Usertalksuper' --> | |||
| {{tmbox |image=] |text=''']''' Emails sent through this form are private, however I may share their content privately with other users for administrative purposes. Please do ''not'' use {{tl|ygm}} on this page: if you email me I will have already received an on-wiki notification.}} | |||
| <!-- {{busy|] (])}} --> | |||
| {{archives|banner=yes}} | |||
| <!-- {{No Internet|message= My new connection continues to be a pain, to the point that now I can't connect at all. My ISP is shipping me a new modem but won't be here until next week, if that solves the problem at all. If I am needed ''urgently'' please use the email function, as I will not be checking in otherwise until this is resolved. Assume that I have ''not'' read anything posted on this page while this notice remains.}} --> | |||
| {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis | {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis | ||
| | archiveprefix=User talk:Ivanvector/Archive | | archiveprefix=User talk:Ivanvector/Archive | ||
| | age= |
| age=504 | ||
| | header={{aan}} | | header={{aan}} | ||
| | numberstart= |
| numberstart=13 | ||
| | maxarchsize=100000 | | maxarchsize=100000 | ||
| | minkeepthreads=5 | | minkeepthreads=5 | ||
| | format= %%i | | format= %%i | ||
| | archivebox= |
| archivebox=no | ||
| | search=yes | |||
| | box-advert=yes | |||
| | box-separator=no | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| ==Happy Adminship Anniversary!== | |||
| == ] == | |||
| <!-- ##RW UNDERDATE## --> | |||
| <div style="display: flex; align-items: center; padding: 0.2em 1em; border: solid 7px orchid; background-color: yellow;">] '''Wishing ] a very on behalf of the ]! Best wishes!''' ] (]) 22:10, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| "I think it would be a good idea for a neutral reviewer with some knowledge of this topic (I'm not one) to review the substance of the sockfarm's suggested edits, if in fact the material is supported by reliable sources". I agree in principle; my involvement with the article comes only from the fact that I reviewed it at GAC and it stayed on my watchlist. I've tried to act as a mediator, and encouraged {{ul|Midnightblueowl}} to make some compromises with the editor(s) in question, but the issue here is not nearly as clear-cut as the IP editor(s) make out; the complaints are often unclear or unsubstantiated, and requests for change are accompanied by edit warring, hounding, and, of course, sock-/meatpuppetry. Any suggestions about finding an amicable way forward here would be warmly received. ] (]) 17:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ]</div> | |||
| :I see that ] didn't work, although I can't really follow what happened there. You might be able to get some input from ] for example, or perhaps you could go to ] and try to summarize the dispute. Like I said the topic is outside my wheelhouse, but I dislike the idea of ] potentially useful information just because of a user who will not stop socking. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 18:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == "Political" RfA vote == | |||
| No, I'm not trying to persuade you to change your mind. | |||
| It intrigues me that you've just made a "political" RfA oppose vote, which is very rare on the English Misplaced Pages. "I'm opposing because I often disagree with this candidate's interpretation of policy so I don't want them to have more power in policy decisions." It's a fair point and actually I'm surprised why there aren't more of this sort of votes. | |||
| I remember being told off many years ago that RfA is not supposed to be an "election". And deletion discussions aren't "votes" either. Often I think this is just hypocrisy. Maybe it's because we see ourselves as a jury rather than an electorate. Perhaps this kind of hypocrisy sets our heart towards a more productive direction as we try to polish an encyclopedia. ]] 16:23, 1 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't think I could convince you that my vote is not political given the circumstances, but it isn't. I quite honestly haven't thought of a way of expressing my particular concern in a way that would not appear to be political, given that the RfD discussion is still open and the policy point is an oft-debated and long-unsettled one. If I'm coming across as political then it is what it is, I suppose. | |||
| :As for RfA, it's an election, and although I agree that it shouldn't be, those among us who think that it is not are being naive. There are many ways we could make it a discussion to determine genuine consensus, but at least as of now it's functionally an election. We require electors to identify (IPs aren't allowed to vote), we encourage candidates to recruit high-profile nominators (campaigning), and we've set an arbitrary "post" whereby we measure whether or not a candidate has won, coincidentally roughly a ] ]. We even have our own version of an Electoral College, in the form of crat chats for very close elections (within the "discretionary range"), in which we trust the ] to enact what they interpret is the decision of the fractured electorate. And furthermore we have no generally accepted qualifying criteria - every elector invents their own, and then within each election we debate what the issues should be ''for that election''. Sometimes the electorate selects the candidate who will ], or who will ], sometimes the electorate chooses the candidate who ], and sometimes we pick the candidate who ] or ]. It's incredibly broken, but it seems to be exactly what the community wants. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 17:35, 1 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::Oh, and none of this last paragraph is in reference to the currently-running RfAs. It's just my observation from watching RfA and reform discussions for a few years. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 17:36, 1 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::That's an amazing comment. I'll copy it (with citation of course) for future reference... ]] 18:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == SPI case that needs to be closed == | |||
| If you've got a free minute, could you close ]? The sock was blocked following discussion at ]. ] (]) 19:58, 4 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :{{done}}. I don't think there's need for urgency, but there was pretty clearly nothing else to do there. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 20:03, 4 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == Sandbox == | |||
| I did the same thing a couple of weeks ago, but self-reverted after investigating the page's edit history more carefully — there actually ''have'' been instances of newbies misinterpreting it as the editing-sandbox for any musical topic, and overwriting it with sandbox drafts about other bands, instead of recognizing it as an article about a specific band whose proper name was Sandbox. So I think the dabline actually ''does'' have to be there, believe it or not. ] (]) 17:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ==ping== | |||
| :fair enough, but on previous occasions - and after waiting for what seemed an inordinate amount of time for a response when no ping was utilized, the ed could have wandered through the equvalent of another 10 socks from previous behaviour, before either clerk or checkuser turns up... patience with socks such as this one is never rewarded, unfortunately ] 12:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::I get it, but I'm sure you can see from the list of cases at ] that there's a long backlog of cases at the moment, and each one of those is potentially another editor who could be making their way through another dozen sockpuppet accounts. We're a small team but we're doing our best. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 12:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :::I fully understand, and I understand that I have been filing the cases back to front as well (incorrectly that is) - I understand there are piles to get through and few doing a lot of work. Will try to adjust to proper procedure. Pity the particular sock has learnt the tricks. Thanks for your response ] 12:59, 12 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == Curb/Kerb == | |||
| Hi Ivanvector, and thanks for your comment about my edit to the European. road signs page. Perhaps you'd kindly reconsider your revert? Kerb is not an alternative to curb in British English as you suggest, but a completely different word with a different meaning. As the article already includes the British English and American English variants of "Yield" ("Give Way" in British English), I thought I'd be helpful and add a further variant so that the article is clearly understood on both sides of the pond. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :Just acknowledging that I've read this, I'm busy at the moment but will respond later. Cheers. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 17:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :Moving to the article's talk page. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 13:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == SCC theory et al. == | |||
| Hi there Ivanvector. I've just commented in your recent RfD nomination of ] and other redirects, and in the course of doing so I noticed quite a few more redirects that ought to be bundled into that nomination - in my opinion anyway, but I won't change your nomination to add them. Would you take a look and consider adding these similar redirects to the nomination as well? I will expand my existing "delete" comment to cover those if you do so. Thanks for reading. ] (]) 15:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :{{yo|64.105.98.115}} I would be happy to add them, except I don't know what they are, I did look before nominating to see if any of the other redirects would shed light on their purpose. If you'd like to add them yourself, add {{code|<nowiki>{{subst:rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=|target=}}</nowiki>}} below the list of redirects and above my nomination statement. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 15:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :They're linked in my comment at the RfD. If you're happy for me to add them, though, I will do so with your permission and we won't risk tripping over each other. ] (]) 15:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::I see. Yeah, some of those ought to go. I'll take a look through them. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 15:43, 16 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == Closing MfDs == | |||
| Just a quick note in regard to ]: the {{tl|Mfd top}} template should be applied to the very top of the page above the section header. I went ahead and fixed it. No worries however, I occasionally forget to use a {{tl|nac}} template or something along those lines when closing discussions there myself. Warmest Regards, <small>— ]<sup> (]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">])</sub></small> 08:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :{{yo|Godsy}} dangit, I knew I'd done that wrong before so I tried to double-check against the log page and I thought it was working. Thanks for catching it! ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 16:04, 18 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == Your decline of a CU at ANI == | |||
| Just a small piece of advice for the future. When you decline an inline request for a CU, please deactivate the template (I usually put "tlx" in front of it) rather than remove it so it remains visible and provides context. Your decline, btw, was very reasonable. Thanks.--] (]) 23:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :That's good advice, thanks. I replaced the deactivated template in the thread. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 23:34, 19 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == I should have known == | |||
| I see you're a fellow Canadian, which explains so very much! Perhaps we'll meet in Montreal in August at Wikimania. Good luck with the RFA. ] (]) 03:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == {{-r|Pizzagate (conspiracy theory)}} == | |||
| What exactly makes the disambiguation "unnecessary"? It doesn't seem to match any of the three examples shown in {{tlx|R from unnecessary disambiguation}}, which respectively are wholly-unnecessary parenthetical disambiguations, unnecessary natural disambiguations, and overspecified parenthetical disambiguations. | |||
| The "wholly-unnecessary parenthetical disambiguation" case would apply if the target article were simply "Pizzagate," but it isn't. --] (]) 02:41, 27 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :{{yo|SoledadKabocha}} it seems you're right, I'll revert myself unless you've already done it. It would be ''unnecessary'' disambiguation if the page at ] were a redirect to ], which it should, but since that hasn't happened yet you're right. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 13:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == Precious anniversary == | |||
| ==Successful RfA== | |||
| {{User QAIbox/auto|years=Eight}} | |||
| --] (]) 07:58, 28 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == 2025 Canadian federal election == | |||
| * Congratulations for adminship !! ] <sup>(])</sup> 00:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ] <sup>(])</sup> 00:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)]] | |||
| *Congratulations on your well-deserved, and very-nearly unanimous candidature, ] (]) 00:10, 28 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| * Congratulations from me too! Enjoy your T-shirt {{smiley}}. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 00:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| *My <s>condolences</s> congratulations. By no small feat, you had the most supported and the 4th most participated RFA in 2016. ]] 00:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| *Congratulations, good luck and best wishes. ] (]) 04:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| *Congrats! I was most excited when I saw your RfA, and even more so knowing you're on the team now. Be sure to give ] a look-see, it's good to know how to do things the hard way but don't wear yourself out :) My door is always open if you need anything. Looking forward to working with you! <span style="font-family:sans-serif">— <span style="font-weight:bold">] <sup>]</sup></span></span> 05:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| *Congrats! I was trilled to see your nom and work along side you in the past. Enjoy your mop... ] (]) 06:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| *Congratulations! :) ] (]) 12:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| *Congrats and good luck! -] (]) 20:24, 28 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| * About time – what took you so long? Very good news, well done! ] (]) 18:18, 29 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| Howdy. I'll start an RFC at the ] page, if you'll formulate the RFC question. ] (]) 20:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {|cellpadding="10" cellspacing="0" style="border:1px solid black; background-color:#e6e9ff; margin-bottom:.5em" width=100% | |||
| :{{yo|GoodDay}} I'm confused. I think you just wrote that we don't need another RFC, but you're here saying I should start one, after I ''also'' tried to say that this doesn't need to be settled now since it'll all change in a few months anyway. I'm fully on board with respecting the result of the 2021 discussion until there's a reason to believe that something has changed, I'm just pushing for internal consistency in the article. {{ul|Simonm223}} is the one suggesting we should push an RFC now, maybe you should ask him. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 20:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| |style="text-align:center;"|Congratulations on your successful RFA!<br>Allow me to impart the words of wisdom I received from ] after my RFA passed –<br>almost ten long, sordid, I-really-should-have-found-a-better-hobby years ago: | |||
| ::The only other alternative, is to have Arkenstrone banned from the page. ] (]) 20:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| |- | |||
| :::That seems like a pretty extreme reaction to an editor with a minor disagreement over this utterly insignificant point. Although one of their recent comments did seem like they're coming to this with an unreasonably positive view of the PPC's standing in 2025. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 20:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| |style="text-align:left;"| | |||
| ::{{tps}} It's true, while Ivanvector and I know each other and are friends we don't ''always'' agree on Misplaced Pages topics. I suggested an RFC mostly because it seems like the argument is going around in circles regarding the interpretation of a four-year-old RfC. It seems like, if people are going to make this urgent, then a refreshed consensus makes sense. However I have no strong feelings one way or the other on including minor parties on the page TBH. ] (]) 20:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| # Remember you will ''always'' protect the ]. (I got nothing here. It's inevitable.) | |||
| # Remember you must always follow the ], except for when you ] them. Without exception, you will pick the wrong one to do. (See #5.) | |||
| # Remember to ] and not ]. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a ].<br> (You'll attract many more of those now, because mop. They must like to drink the dirty water in the bucket.) | |||
| # Use the ] ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block, because really, what else is there to live for? | |||
| # Remember that when you make these errors, someone will be more than happy to point them out to you in ] and ]. It will not be a ] because we are admins and, therefore, we are all ] anyway. | |||
| # Finally, remember to contact me if you ever need assistance, and I will do what I am able. | |||
| <br> | |||
| :: <span style="color: #9932CC">]<sup>]</sup></span> 00:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="text-align:center;"|<small>DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Misplaced Pages, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales, because if it did, it would be much, much better.<br>All rights released under GFDL. | |||
| |} | |||
| == Talking about Juno cast == | |||
| ==== Thanks! ==== | |||
| *{{pagelinks|Juno (film)}} | |||
| Look @], all I'm saying is, Juno is the mother of Juno's child, she's been pregnant for nine months ] (]) 02:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you everyone who supported ]! And thank you also to everyone who asked questions and provided constructive criticism, your input is very much appreciated and I have a lot to consider going forward. I promise you all I will try very hard not to ]. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 02:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :{{yo|BigstoneonWiki}} I understand what you're saying and I'm not disagreeing with you. It just doesn't need to be said that Juno is the mother of her own child. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 07:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :It's okay, you can't actually delete the main page now. I've tried. ;-) ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 11:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::Okay, I don't want to argue with you, I just saying ] (]) 08:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::As I recall, the last time the main page was deleted it was because someone said it couldn't be done. ;) ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 12:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == Inquiry on the eligibility of a page on Requests for page protection/Increase: Difference between revisions == | |||
| == Steamboat Bill == | |||
| ] has been subject to routine vandalism every month. Which you said doesn't qualify for it. Just to confirm, is this actually normal for wikipedia; the page is seriously meant to be like that forever? Random IPs can get their way for months unguarded? ] (]) 07:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks for the help! See ; I didn't remember much about the mechanics of closing one of these. ] (]) 20:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :{{yo|ContributedEditor}} Thanks for your question. One of Misplaced Pages's fundamental principles is that it is an encyclopedia that ]. We always consider protection requests against that fundamental principle, and in general we only protect pages in response to active, ongoing disruption, when there is no better solution. Usually that means many disruptive edits by multiple editors in a short period of time, or it can mean a pattern of disruptive editing over a longer period of time. On ] I don't think either of those are happening: you found an error added several weeks earlier (so protection today would not help, in fact it might prevent someone else from fixing other errors), and before that I went back all the way to November to find just one edit that I thought was vandalism. I also don't think there's a pattern here, since the last time the article was protected was all the way back in 2023, and that was only for two days. You can read ] for more on this. Cheers! ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 20:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== IP sock puppet evasion == | ||
| Hello. That block evader ({{IP|2.97.98.195}}, {{IP|2.97.212.207}}) is back again, this time as {{IP|2.97.219.149}}. Their IP addresses geolocate to the UK. Can you please look into this? Thanks, ] (] - ]) 23:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Hi there. Yesterday I submitted a . I've been periodically checking up on it but noticed mine just sits there while others come and go. Is there something incorrect about my report? Surely I would have heard about it if it was? I am just curious is all. thanks! --]<span style="background-color:#B4DF6F">✿</span> / <sup>]</sup> 18:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :{{yo| |
:{{yo|Sjones23}} yeah, they pinged me a bunch of times. {{ul|Ad Orientem}} already blocked their latest IP but 48 hours isn't long enough for this vandal. I've added a three month rangeblock, the range is not particularly busy. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 21:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
Latest revision as of 21:14, 12 January 2025
 | SCAM WARNING!
If you have been contacted or solicited by anyone asking for payment to get a draft into article space, improve a draft, or restore a deleted article, such offers are not legitimate and you should contact paid-en-wp wikipedia.org immediately. Please see this page for more information. |
 | Welcome to my talk page!
|
 | Click here to email me. Emails sent through this form are private, however I may share their content privately with other users for administrative purposes. Please do not use {{ygm}} on this page: if you email me I will have already received an on-wiki notification. |
|
|
Archives: Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. | |
Happy Adminship Anniversary!
Precious anniversary
 | |
| Eight years! |
|---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:58, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
2025 Canadian federal election
Howdy. I'll start an RFC at the 2025 Canadian federal election page, if you'll formulate the RFC question. GoodDay (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- @GoodDay: I'm confused. I think you just wrote that we don't need another RFC, but you're here saying I should start one, after I also tried to say that this doesn't need to be settled now since it'll all change in a few months anyway. I'm fully on board with respecting the result of the 2021 discussion until there's a reason to believe that something has changed, I'm just pushing for internal consistency in the article. Simonm223 is the one suggesting we should push an RFC now, maybe you should ask him. Ivanvector (/Edits) 20:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- The only other alternative, is to have Arkenstrone banned from the page. GoodDay (talk) 20:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- That seems like a pretty extreme reaction to an editor with a minor disagreement over this utterly insignificant point. Although one of their recent comments did seem like they're coming to this with an unreasonably positive view of the PPC's standing in 2025. Ivanvector (/Edits) 20:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) It's true, while Ivanvector and I know each other and are friends we don't always agree on Misplaced Pages topics. I suggested an RFC mostly because it seems like the argument is going around in circles regarding the interpretation of a four-year-old RfC. It seems like, if people are going to make this urgent, then a refreshed consensus makes sense. However I have no strong feelings one way or the other on including minor parties on the page TBH. Simonm223 (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- The only other alternative, is to have Arkenstrone banned from the page. GoodDay (talk) 20:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Talking about Juno cast
Look @Ivanvector, all I'm saying is, Juno is the mother of Juno's child, she's been pregnant for nine months BigStoneonWiki (talk) 02:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- @BigstoneonWiki: I understand what you're saying and I'm not disagreeing with you. It just doesn't need to be said that Juno is the mother of her own child. Ivanvector (/Edits) 07:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Okay, I don't want to argue with you, I just saying BigStoneonWiki (talk) 08:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Inquiry on the eligibility of a page on Requests for page protection/Increase: Difference between revisions
Gang rape#India has been subject to routine vandalism every month. Which you said doesn't qualify for it. Just to confirm, is this actually normal for wikipedia; the page is seriously meant to be like that forever? Random IPs can get their way for months unguarded? ContributedEditor (talk) 07:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- @ContributedEditor: Thanks for your question. One of Misplaced Pages's fundamental principles is that it is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. We always consider protection requests against that fundamental principle, and in general we only protect pages in response to active, ongoing disruption, when there is no better solution. Usually that means many disruptive edits by multiple editors in a short period of time, or it can mean a pattern of disruptive editing over a longer period of time. On gang rape I don't think either of those are happening: you found an error added several weeks earlier (so protection today would not help, in fact it might prevent someone else from fixing other errors), and before that I went back all the way to November to find just one edit that I thought was vandalism. I also don't think there's a pattern here, since the last time the article was protected was all the way back in 2023, and that was only for two days. You can read WP:PREEMPTIVE for more on this. Cheers! Ivanvector (/Edits) 20:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
IP sock puppet evasion
Hello. That block evader (2.97.98.195 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2.97.212.207 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) is back again, this time as 2.97.219.149 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Their IP addresses geolocate to the UK. Can you please look into this? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Sjones23: yeah, they pinged me a bunch of times. Ad Orientem already blocked their latest IP but 48 hours isn't long enough for this vandal. I've added a three month rangeblock, the range is not particularly busy. Ivanvector (/Edits) 21:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)