Jump to content

User talk:Ivanvector

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Trout this user
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Hello

[edit]

I don't know if this is the right place. But I have one problem. Couple of editors Obsidian emiel (talk · contribs), one yesterday registered who does the same type of edits Chavelines (talk · contribs), and now I see one more IP ~2025-40480-26 (talk · contribs), (maybe all the same user, not making any accusation, just concerned about possible coordinated edditing or sockpuppetry) constantly add unsourced or poorly sourced content, removing sourced content and doing nonconstructive edits on the Conscription article. Do you have some advice what to do, where to report that users, how page can be protected, what can be done about if that is indeed some coordinated editing or sockpuppetry? Volodia.woldemar (talk) 18:53, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Volodia.woldemar, you were right to be suspicious. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Obsidian emiel. I have already completed that report, but if you see other new accounts that you suspect are the same user, you can submit a new report by following the instructions at WP:SPI. Thanks. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:22, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, and on the same page, removal of sourced, seems the same editor while blocked editing, ~2025-41051-00 (talk · contribs). Volodia.woldemar (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's pretty obvious. I have blocked the temporary account. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:32, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just made a report about that and I saw it was blocked. I am sorry, I never did so I was "practicing" how to do that Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Obsidian emiel. Volodia.woldemar (talk) 22:34, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all, your report looks good. We call the "main" account in a sockpuppetry case the "sockmaster", and you don't need to include them in your report (the report goes under their name anyway), otherwise that all looks fine. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:39, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I will keep that on my mind. Obsidian emiel block is with an expiration time of 72 hours?Volodia.woldemar (talk) 22:44, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ivanvector. Obsidian is back, the same page and the same actions removing sources, claim some blog as a source in edit summaries. Volodia.woldemar (talk) 17:18, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 23:30, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Date display

[edit]

Regarding this comment: as I understand it, the underlying module for the citation templates parses the wikitext source for the page and looks for the templates that specify the date format. isaacl (talk) 02:25, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for oversight: repeated selective removals and procedural obstruction

[edit]

Since you probably familiarized yourself with this RfC when advising earlier, I request your guidance and oversight regarding a series of actions by editor Robminchin on the above Talk page for List of oldest universities where the RfC is posted. My goal is to ensure that ongoing discussions proceed constructively, transparently, and in accordance with Wikipedia policies. Here is a summary of concerns:

  • Repeated selective removals of WikiProject banners: most recently, the removal of WikiProject Canada tag from the Talk page, despite the article including Canadian universities and an ongoing RfC concerning oldest Canadian universities. Other geographically broad banners (e.g., for WP:WikiProject Europe) were retained, suggesting selective enforcement rather than adherence to project scope. These removals may limit normal editorial participation and reduce notification of relevant projects' members.
  • Violation of the Three-Revert Rule (3RR): within the past 24 hours, Robminchin has performed multiple reverts of my edits despite mine creating a new Talk section and inviting him to discuss it there first, including the most recent removal of the Project Canada tag, which may raise concerns under WP:3RR.
  • Obstruction of discussion visibility: the above procedural Talk section I added to document selective removals and invite constructive discussion was moved below the reference list, far from the voting entries, which obscures its visibility. References are normally at the bottom of Wikipedia articles and respective Talk pages. This effectively interferes with normal participation and discussion flow, impacting other editors’ ability to engage.
  • Inaccurate procedural claims: Robminchin has repeatedly stated that adding a relevant WikiProject tag for discussion purposes is outside the scope of the project, contrary to WP norms and the bot-driven Project Canada Article Alert system. These claims misrepresent Wikipedia policy and project practices.
  • Pattern of ownership-like behavior (WP:OWN): over several days, Robminchin has repeatedly asserted control over procedural aspects of the Talk page (selective removal of relevant WikiProject banners, restoration of a claimed “status quo ante,” relocation of procedural discussion sections, and repeated reverts during an active RfC), while discouraging or obstructing alternative procedural approaches. This pattern aligns with concerns described at WP:OWN regarding editors treating pages as under their control rather than subject to collaborative process.
  • Request:

- Guidance on how to safely maintain the Project Canada tag and procedural Talk sections without violating 3RR or other policies. - Oversight or intervention to ensure that repeated selective removals and obfuscation of Talk content do not continue. - Advice on whether Robminchin’s actions may fall under harassment/obstruction provisions under Wikipedia rules and what corrective action is appropriate.

Supporting evidence: Full edit history for the past 24 hours, including removals, reverts, and content moves:

  • 20:35, 20 December 2025 Robminchin −23 Restore status quo ante during discussion
  • 20:34, 20 December 2025 Robminchin +18 →Request for comment: Inclusion of University of New Brunswick: Complete move
  • 20:34, 20 December 2025 Robminchin −20 →Repeated selective removals of a WikiProject banner most related to active discussions: Move reflist back
  • 20:32, 20 December 2025 Robminchin +942 →Repeated selective removals of a WikiProject banner most related to active discussions

The relevant diffs showing repeated removals and Talk-page restructuring:

• Removal of WikiProject Canada tag during active RfC: 

 [1]

• Second removal of same tag within 24h: 

 [2]

• Moving Talk section below references: 

 [3]

• Third revert within 24h (possible 3RR issue): 

 [4]

Summary:

The combination of repeated selective removals, procedural misstatements, obstruction of discussion, and multiple reverts appears to interfere with normal editorial participation and warrants administrative guidance to ensure the RfC proceeds constructively, visibly, and according to Wikipedia norms. Thank you for your guidance.Tinterest (talk) 22:22, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

URGENT: The UNB RfC has been effectively suppressed from Project Canada’s Article Alerts feed due to unilateral tag removal by the above policy-violating editor. This significantly limits visibility to relevant WikiProject members and risks procedural mishandling. Immediate intervention is now requested. Tinterest (talk) 23:51, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tinterest: please don't post LLM-generated complaints here. A short, concise summary of the issue is all that is needed for attention and action. If you need immediate assistance for an ongoing issue, you'll get a faster response by posting to the administrators' noticeboard for incidents. Especially do not post LLM-generated content there, it will be removed. I'm not quoting policy, I am telling you what will actually happen.
This isn't a hill worth dying on. You did everything right: you boldly added the WikiProject banner, you started a discussion when it was removed again, consensus is against including it. On Wikipedia, decisions are made by discussion and consensus, not by policies and guidelines, and sometimes discussions don't go the way we think they should. If you've made your case and others don't agree, all you can do is move on. Whether or not to include a discussion page under a WikiProject for the purpose of publicizing a single discussion would be a silly thing to pull an edit-warring block over.
I noticed that the RFC was listed as a "policy" RFC, which wasn't correct. That category is for discussions concerning Wikipedia policies themselves, not for content issues where those policies may contribute to the discussion. I have relisted the RFC under the history and society categories, which should draw more contextually appropriate attention. I've also posted a notice at several relevant WikiProjects. Don't worry about the article alerts: our RFC guideline lists ways that you can publicize an RFC but doesn't mention article alerts at all. If it helps: there are currently 448 editors subscribed to WT:CANADA, plus another 930 subscribed to the noticeboards of the other projects where I've posted a notice, although there's likely some overlap in those numbers. There are only 28 editors subscribed to the project's alerts. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:53, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to look into the matter and correct the classification. That clarification resolves my procedural concerns, and I’ll defer to the discussion as it proceeds. I appreciate the guidance and oversight. Tinterest (talk) 17:29, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for positive closure of UNB listing RfC per list’s stated inclusion criterion alone

[edit]

I am requesting that the RfC regarding the inclusion of the University of New Brunswick be closed — not based on the vote tally, but solely on the list’s stated inclusion criterion: the date an institution first met the traditional structural and legal definition of a university as applied in Europe (see article lead).

The 1800 Charter of the College of New Brunswick (Lawrence 1907, p. 266) explicitly establishes UNB as a university-level institution “with power to confer degrees in the liberal arts and sciences in the same manner as they are conferred by the universities in England,” making any discussion on UNB’s inclusion redundant.

Instructional start dates in the 1820s are off-criterion per the article. Nevertheless, editors Robminchin and Jonathan A Jones have repeatedly emphasized instructional dates and related interpretive arguments over the list’s sole inclusion rule; you previously reprimanded these editors for attempts to disrupt RfC processes.

Under fundamental policies, including WP:V and WP:OR, which safeguard Wikipedia's consistency and integrity, I request that this RfC be closed in favor of UNB’s inclusion due to the conflict between the article's stated inclusion criterion and the vote tally, which exclusively reflects disagreement over factors irrelevant to this list per its single, clearly defined criterion.

Thank you for your attention. Tinterest (talk) 00:34, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would not be appropriate for me to close this discussion. Discussion closers are expected to be neutral observers, and I have participated in discussions and written content about UNB and its alumni on enough occasions to have crossed that line. The RFC was just re-published yesterday and this week is winter holidays in much of the English world, it should stay open for a bit to attract more participation, but someone will be along when the time is right to evaluate and close the discussion. Please be patient. RFCs normally run for 30 days, but they sometimes close sooner if the result is very obvious or if there has been no new activity in several days. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:54, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to briefly update you on this RfC. The discussion is now fully documented: the lead and long-standing precedent (e.g., Harvard) clearly define the inclusion criterion, and no interpretive issues remain outstanding. A summary and clarification have been posted for the record. No action is requested on your part; I simply wanted to provide this 10-days update. Tinterest (talk) 01:35, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about behaviour

[edit]

Thread was closed, I'd like to continue this. Was the way you handled this discussion fully necessary? [5] I wasn't aware of the full context, I was even willing to partially retract claim. But in between, your responses were unnecessarily condescending and pointed towards me, even involving a threat to block me despite the fact that I was raising concern about an issue that another admin had expressed concern about as well. Did I treat you so poorly first that I deserved sarcastic jabs and a threat? grapesurgeon (talk) 23:39, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Grapesurgeon: I logged off after my last comment in that thread and didn't see the rest, or that it had been closed, until this morning. My assertive response was intended for the administrators I was directly replying to, who were suggesting to block a user who hadn't yet had an opportunity to respond and on the basis of a five-months-old SPI with no new evidence of recent, ongoing misconduct having been presented (courtesy ping voorts and asilvering). I also said "we don't block users for asking for help", and then threatened to block you when you were doing exactly that, and that was inappropriate. I apologize for having made that threat.
Since you and a TA did provide some evidence to investigate after I had logged off, I had a better look:
  • First off, we can pretty clearly establish that User:DaveZ123 is the person who operates the website at https://transliterationtools.blogspot.com, run by an account named "Dave" and created in January 2016. We can also pretty clearly say that User:JackonLee54 operates https://transliterationisfun.blogspot.com, run by an account named "Jackon" who joined Blogspot in December 2015 (the blog itself is broken and doesn't indicate a creation date). It's probably not a coincidence that both of the Blogspot users also have their own distinct side projects of transliterating the Bible verse John 3:16 into various non-Latin script languages.
    • DaveZ123's first invitation to another user to review their tool, in January 2016, was a link to Jackon's blog ([6]). But prior to that they also at least once asked a user to review an unrelated transliteration tool ([7]), and also asked once about helping with a translation to a test wiki they were working on ([8]), which was also about a Christian church. At the time they hosted a list of free online transliteration tools on their user page ([9]).
    • Both users have promoted other users' applications for advanced permissions on the Hakka Wikipedia ([10], [11]).
    • I found one instance of JackonLee54 inviting a user to review their blog ([12]) and DaveZ123 later inviting that same user to comment on a Hakka Wikipedia discussion ([13]). That user is also a frequent contributor to multiple languages.
    • User:A-eng hasn't edited in over five years so I'm not going to spend too much time on them. They also appear to be a user interested in multiple languages and transliteration of Bible verses into non-Latin scripts, and they have at least once invited a user to review Jackon's blog. They also were active on the incubator wiki, but it's pretty clear this account is abandoned.
  • To me, this could be one person with multiple accounts, but I don't understand why they would bother. It's just as plausible that this is several people who share an interest in a very niche topic (Asian Christian churches, and transliterations of specifically John 3:16).
Focusing only on DaveZ123 as they're the only account that is active:
  • The two diffs you provided here are two examples of DaveZ123 asking for help with a translation, which looks to me to be the same Bible verse. You said these were examples of them asking for help to translate material for their blog, but it's just as likely they were asking for help from editors who listed themselves as proficient speakers of those languages and used the translation to contribute to something on the incubator. I can't quite follow their contribs there since they're mostly non-English, but neither Dave's main blog nor Jackon's John 3:16 blog (both the more active of the two) have any new posts since July (Dave) or since 2023 (Jackon). Based on the evidence, you can only get to "they're doing this to promote their blog" if you assume bad faith.
  • In the same edit you said that they're only using Wikipedia to ask users to create content for their blog. Looking only at their English contribs does give that impression, but that unravels quickly when you consider their global contributions, where they're clearly also working with these users on other wikis to create Wikipedia content, and also don't seem to be updating their blogs. I get that you might not have thought to check global contribs, and the tools we have for it are not the best anyway.
  • In a subsequent edit you provided more diffs of you removing links to their blogs from articles, but those diffs don't indicate when they were added nor by who. So I checked:
So those are not particularly "recent" additions either, and one was by an entirely unrelated user. If you like, the {{link summary}} template generates links to tools you can use to find other instances, or instances on other wikis, like so:
  • Getting to the main issues:
    • The use (and possible abuse) of multiple accounts is really secondary here. Most likely they would be considered meatpuppets if there is any wrongdoing otherwise.
    • The tools they've linked to don't seem to be set up to generate revenue, but our spam guidelines don't require that the external website being promoted is commercial, only that the on-wiki activity is intended to promote it and serves no other purpose. I think they probably added these links in good faith thinking that the tools they created would be useful; people do add external links to useful free-to-use tools quite frequently, and it's generally acceptable when the content enhances the reader's understanding of the topic, sometimes even if it is commercial in nature. But you've also said that their content is also incorrect, which is a different sort of issue. I think you're right to remove links to inaccurate external content, and since they're doing this on many wikis and presumably using their content in the incubator wikis, this seems like something that should be reported at meta for global attention. I can help with that, but I will be travelling today so I'll have to come back to it.
    • Regarding asking Wikipedia users for help with content for their own website: Wikipedia is meant to be a free information resource, and explicitly allows commercial use of its content. People use Wikipedia for information for their business presentations or school homework or research papers or whatever else all the time. DaveZ123 needed help with translations and went specifically to users who noted themselves as proficient in those languages; they could have asked at the reference desk but they seem to have decided to go to those users directly instead. We may have ethical concerns about recruiting Wikipedia volunteers to generate content for a commercial project (if that's what it is) but ultimately nothing forbids it, and those users are free to choose to participate or not.
I'm going to have to come back to this later. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:15, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The assertive responses were pretty clearly cutting towards marks that I directly made. While I appreciate that you made an apology for the threat, the rest of the sarcasm and twisting my words was grossly inappropriate and still needs to be apologized for.
I still disapprove of not having expectations of DaveZ123 and his sock(s) needing to disclose his accounts and when he's doing stuff for Wikipedia or not. I think it'd be better if someone talked to him. grapesurgeon (talk) 20:17, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, even if the assertive responses were meant for other admins, why would that behavior be appropriate to them either? Your words were cutting past the point of necessity. Why? grapesurgeon (talk) 20:19, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot give you an explanation for things that you think I said, and I have already addressed what I did say. The other admins (who were pinged when I first replied to you here) know how to find this page if they want to discuss my replies to them.
As for DaveZ123, you could be forgiven for not having read all of my brain dump above, but the tl;dr is I don't think there's anything wrong going on here. They don't appear to have any other accounts, certainly not active ones, so I don't see what forcing them to disclose other accounts would accomplish. Editors are allowed to have side projects, they're allowed to try to find relevant expertise here, and you're allowed to decline their requests for help. I think that the links you've highlighted are relevant to the topics where they were added, and not unduly promotional, although I also think it was right to remove them if you think they're providing incorrect information. Why don't you try talking with them about your concerns? I don't see what there is for me to do here, unless you want me to start that discussion instead? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:21, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[20] Reread this comment and tell me this isn't pointed towards me using my own words exactly. Why would you use my words against asilvering? That wouldn't make sense.
I may escalate this further if there's no apology. Doubling down on this behavior is not a good look. grapesurgeon (talk) 21:29, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

[edit]

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

[edit]

Precious anniversary

[edit]
Precious
Nine years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:26, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Gulf of Mexico ... could you please make the close clearer?

[edit]

In the close at Talk:Gulf of Mexico you wrote "actually no you can't discuss new titles during the moratorium." But the moratorium encompasses all aspects of prose, not just the titling, so could you please address that also? Also Wikipedia states that "Most discussions don't need closure at all, but when they do, any uninvolved editor may close most of them"... you are directly involved in this series of discussions. Isn't that bad form? I think a fully uninvolved editor should do the closure. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:32, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fyunck(click): have a look at the new moratorium discussion. Twenty-one editors commented; twenty said something to the effect of "there's still nothing new to discuss and we're tired of it." You were the other one. Now there's another drive-by comment suggesting a rename (in the form of suggesting that the moratorium doesn't prevent discussion of it) with nearly everyone who replied expressing exhaustion in advance about the prospect of now having to discuss the moratorium's scope ad nauseam. Except, again, for you, who took the opportunity to complain about the moratorium and cast aspersions about everyone else's political motivations. I tried to write a neutral close expressing the nearly-unanimous view while also avoiding calling you out, and also wrote it while drafting an ANI complaint in another tab about your behaviour on that page. I eventually decided that was premature, but then it took you 17 minutes to find my talk page to complain about the close.
I'll revert, but Jesus Christ man, take a look in the mirror. Let me be the last one to tell you to drop the damn stick already. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 01:08, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are full of condensed all-soup. Have you even read what I said because you are not understanding me at all. I wrote drive-bys by anon IPs need to stop. They should be reverted at once. Are we clear on that? I said that moratoriums at Wikipedia happen when we have exhausted new discussions and everyone wants things to end. THAT NEVER HAPPENED. We had one discussion on a rename and it wasn't long and exhausting. We don't do moratoriums and what "might" happen. And we don't do them for a year. But that said, I agree 100% that this title isn't even close to being renamed. No new info has happened so I think that would be ridiculous. Are we clear on that? However we had no discussions on prose content really at all, especially the lead and alternate names. That got thrown into the moratorium and that is dead wrong. That's closing off tweaks that could make the article better and we cant discuss that either???? That's is definitely not the way Wikipedia is supposed to work and I will defend Wikipedia protocol and what is best for our many readers whether they are grade school children or senior citizens. Something stinks the way this was swept aside and an involved editor closing this doesn't make me feel any better about the situation. And I saw that at least one other administrator agreed with me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:26, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Wishing you a happy 2026! Happy holidays

[edit]
Happy New Year!
Ivanvector,
Have a great 2026 and thanks for your continued contributions to Wikipedia.

   – Background color is Very Peri (#6868ab), Pantone's 2026 Color of the year

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2026}} to user talk pages.

– 𝙳.𝟷𝟾𝚝𝚑 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 18:43, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Estonia's short description, shouldn' be problematic

[edit]

Howdy. I understand why you blocked @Glebushko0703:, but I am coming across 'odd' behaviour by 'red-cloured' editors at Estonia. Why do they resist having Estonia's short description matching with Latvia's & Lithuania's? Also, how is my (or anyone else) attempts to do so - "polltically motivated"? There seems to be resistance, soley to resist. GoodDay (talk) 00:08, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, CoolCuteBear (who's made only 30 edits, over nearly 6 years) suddenly shows up? GoodDay (talk) 00:10, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Of @CoolCuteBear's 30 edits since 2023 (they made none before then), 22 of them seem directly related to Estonia. Would it not be more "odd" if they engaged in literally any dispute other than an Estonia-related one? LordCollaboration (talk) 01:44, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway - I've changed the short description at Estonia to "Country in Northern Europe", to now match it with Latvia, Lithuania, Sweden & Finland. GoodDay (talk) 00:58, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is D.18th is requesting to lift the partial block from File: namespace. ꕥ 𝙳.𝟷𝟾𝚝𝚑 ꕥ →𝙻𝚎𝚊𝚟𝚎 𝚊 𝚖𝚎𝚜𝚜𝚊𝚐𝚎← 14:18, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 01:31, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:The Great Meme Reset of 2026

[edit]

Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, the introduction of inappropriate pages, such as Draft:The Great Meme Reset of 2026, is considered vandalism and is prohibited. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits) 18:43, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@SignedInteger: if you looked at all at this page's history before biting a new user, you would have seen that I created it for a user who could not create it themselves and requested it at WP:EFFP. You ought therefore to have known that I would object to its speedy deletion. It was NOT vandalism, and at least one citation to a reliable source was provided, although it wasn't in the right format. @BusterD: this was an inappropriate use of speedy deletion; please restore the page. And please be more careful to check that pages you are deleting actually qualify for the stated criterion. I could name you a few admins who have lost their bit for exactly this sort of indiscriminate deletion. Thank you. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:54, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector: I'm sorry, but how does this fit on Wikipedia? Tell me. I'm not biting a new user, that was not my intention, but how does this fit on Wikipedia? Also one reliable source is usually not enough. And even then, the two sources cited did not display due to errors, so I could not access them either way. I apologise if this came off as biting a new user, it was not my intention, this is just a very unusual subject matter for an article to have, not that it automatically doesn't belong on here because of that, but still. I apologise if my conduct was off, because again that was not my intention and also you could've told us that earlier. @BusterD probably thought that it was vandalism because of the lack of sources or the strange title, otherwise, he would've removed the notice. Again, please understand that my intent was not malicious. Thank you. S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits) 20:00, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector: Again, to clarify, I was not doing this to harm anyone, it is correct to criticise me for not looking at the page's history, and I admit that was a mistake. Even so, I'm still unaware of any articles we've had on here that are about Great Meme Resets. Of course, I could be ignorant here, too, but I still question the merit of this having an article written about it. I don't want to profusely apologise, I really hate it when I slip up here, and I must heed, if it did come off as Wikipedia:BITE then that was a terrible mistake by me. I'm the last person that would want to do that. I hope that you understand that with the amount of nonsensical drafts we get every day, it can be easy for one made in good faith to get treated badly, it doesn't excuse my ignorance, but still. Again, I apologise for my complete and total ignorance. S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits) 20:13, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@SignedInteger: I appreciate this explanation, and that you were trying to help. I do think you went about it badly, though. First off, please read WP:NOTVANDALISM. I do understand that we get a lot of junk submitted through AFC, and I have deleted a lot of pages from there myself. I saw this title at WP:EFFP and at first made the same assumption as you, but the content in the filter (which was the same as what I posted to the draft) seemed to me like a legitimate attempt at writing an encyclopedia article, and so I helped the user create it instead. I wasn't expecting them to submit it without trying to improve it at all first, but the AFC template does produce a big "submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. If instead they tried to submit something like "hurr durr skibidi 67 dank meme rizz" then I would have done the same as you, but AFC is a process designed for new users. I think you need to be a little more willing to assume good faith and offer advice and guidance to a new user submitting content even if it seems on the surface to be inappropriate for a separate article. There is no speedy deletion criterion for lack of notability, and drafts normally are not deleted only for notability concerns. I didn't know that we already had some content on this topic on another page, I might have suggested to the new user that they contribute to that first instead of trying to write a separate article. You skipped all of that and went straight to calling them a vandal and erasing their work. I'm also not that happy about being called a vandal myself, but I know that's a template.
A couple things:
  1. You mentioned that you couldn't access the sources, but they were provided in the page source and you could have extracted the URLs and entered them into your browser yourself. One was to this article in Forbes and discusses this "meme reset" in detail. The other was to KnowYourMeme and I didn't try to open it.
  2. You don't need to ping users on their own talk pages. I get a notification for every edit that's made on this page. I don't get a second notification for the ping, though.
Thanks again. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:37, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector: I don't disagree that I went about this badly, I try my best to assume good faith as much as I can, but I must tell you this now:
  1. Know Your Meme is generally unreliable. The Forbes article is probably fine, though.
  2. I'm well aware of that (pinging users on their own talk pages), this is more of a force of habit. (I just like pinging people)
Regardless, that was not my goal, if you look at my other AfC reviews, while the stats are entirely declines, I always leave a long comment explaining what the editor did wrong. This is the exception, not the norm, as a mentor and a frequent responder to questions in the Teahouse, I'd be an idiot to act like that with new users. Once again, my conduct was off, and this was a mistake, but this isn't what I intend to do as a user, I hope you understand that. I recommend that you restore the draft (I'd assume that you can do so), and I'll let @Codercat94 know what they should do to improve it once it is restored. Again, a very big mistake on my part, I apologise, but I want to make it clear this is not and will not be a reoccurring thing with me. Thanks. S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits) 20:49, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'm aware of what is and isn't vandalism, I just went through this with a poor assumption. I am a bit new to reviewing AfCs, and I must admit, I don't like thinking too much when doing that, not an excuse, I'm probably just having some nervousness, I never really thought I'd be one so soon but stupidity like that causes me to see what looks like a draft made in bad-faith but is actually a draft made in good-faith and reject it. Again, very big mistake on my part, and I think this is a good lesson for me on what not to do next time. Cheers. S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits) 20:57, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
An update, I have given them advice on their talk page. Once again, I apologise for this, and again, this is not the norm with me but greater strides will be taken now. The best course of action now is to move on from this, as I'm not really sure what more we can do here. S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits) 21:11, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:The Great Meme Reset of 2026 has a new comment

[edit]
I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:The Great Meme Reset of 2026. Thanks! S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits) 23:33, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
OH COME ON, I THOUGHT IT WOULD NOTIFY THE RIGHT USER. Sorry for the shouting, but that was meant for @Codercat94, not you. I'm sure you knew that, but damn this is unintuitive sometimes. S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits) 23:39, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A very happy update!

[edit]

Draft:The Great Meme Reset of 2026 is now a proper article! I'm sure you'll be glad to know that this debacle has a happy ending, so I'm letting you know! It easily passes Wikipedia:GNG, and I see no other issues with it but yeah. S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits) 00:57, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of The Great Meme Reset of 2026

[edit]

Hello Ivanvector,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged The Great Meme Reset of 2026 for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly indicate why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Agnieszka653 (talk) 04:34, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Agnieszka653 and CoconutOctopus: you have got to be fucking kidding me. See the three sections directly above this. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:48, 4 January 2026 (UTC)}}[reply]
Restored, apologies. CoconutOctopus talk 12:50, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of The Great Meme Reset of 2026

[edit]

Hello Ivanvector,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged The Great Meme Reset of 2026 for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly indicate why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:25, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Bastun: if you inappropriately tag an article for speedy deletion like this again, I will revoke your NPP and PCR userrights. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:02, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Two strikes and you're out? I, like many editors, make mistakes. It looks like, on this occasion, I didn't spot that the article in question had already been speedied. Apologies for the error, and I can understand your frustration that it was speedied multiple times. I'll try to do better. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:39, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2026

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2025).

Administrator changes

added
readded Fathoms Below
removed

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:29, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A7 Advice for Blooket Wikis

[edit]

My bad, I should have checked page history for any previous A7 declines before tagging. But, as a new NPPer, I'm confused why the initial A7 was declined, since I thought it checked all the boxes. 24 hours have passed since last edit by creator, and the draft lacks a claim of significance (a Fandom/Miraheze wiki for a topic that has been rejected as nonnotable on AfC. Draft:Blooket). Can you point to what I've missed? Ca talk to me! 17:02, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please disregard—I found your explanation at User talk:Hosterr. Ca talk to me! 17:09, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Ca: (edit conflict) I was already writing this, I think you're owed an explanation. The deleting administrator and I have a difference of opinion on what constitutes a claim of significance, and you're caught up in it. I apologize, I am going to walk way from this (courtesy ping CoconutOctopus again). I see that the page has been nominated for deletion, and I think that is the appropriate next step.
It's my view that a credible claim of significance is any statement that asserts that the topic is important, and which is not obviously false on its face. A statement similar to "this wiki is important for players of this game" is plainly a statement of importance, and it is reasonable to believe that the topic is actually important to players of the game. It's a far lower standard than notability, which is determined through discussion (for example at AFD). An article that fails the CCS standard looks like "I go to school with Bob, he has the best Pokemon collection." or "My dog digs the best holes." Most A7 deletions are improper, it is very overused, and separate from that there is an epidemic of administrators deleting any CSD-tagged page without bothering to check if the page actually meets the criterion, and there have been several administrators who have lost their privileges over that very issue. We are here to help people build the encyclopedia, and we don't do that by trashing every new editor's contribution for not being perfect on the first try. I did suggest to the article's creator that they should maybe try adding this to the draft they're already working on for the game itself, and work on establishing notability for that topic rather than trying to create spinoffs, and I think that was a better use of all of our time. They're a long way off, but I see this as more of an uphill battle than a lost cause.
But besides all of that, thank you for your work in new page patrolling. It's an area where Wikipedia always needs more volunteers. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:25, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your lengthy explanation. While I still believe the same claim could applied to some three million wikis that are hosted on Fandom, I understand A7 misuse is common issue (and have seen some myself) requiring higher sensitivities. Ca talk to me! 02:12, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ivanvector&oldid=1331948887"