User talk:Ivanvector/Archive 22

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)

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)

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)

Yeah, that's pretty obvious. I have blocked the temporary account. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:32, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

It seems that as soon as the block expired, the same editor resumed the same actions: removing sourced material and adding some blog as a source in the edit summary, etc. Volodia.woldemar (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

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)

Hello Ivanvector. I admit it wasn't right of me to publically accuse the user of being a sock before providing the SPI evidence, but I genuinly didn't mean they were sock when I reffered to them as "odd" after your warning. I was talking about them stalking me. That's what started this dispute in the first place.

I saw this user following me on different pages, take a look at diffs I have provided. They participate in most discussions I do, while having no previous edits on those pages. That's exactly where my initial suspicion came from, and later when I saw them once again, I was simply frustrated. The reason I have contacted the admin is to give this matter a resolution and figure out why are they doing that. Please allow us to have a proper arbitration, it's possible that there was a misunderstanding. I feel like their goal was to provoke me and get me banned initially, but I still want to understand their motives, since this started pretty long time ago.

I like editing Wikipedia and I'm not looking for enemies here either, but I'm still an unexperienced user, so sometimes I let my emotions get ahead of me. I really didn't mean to harm the user, I just wanted to bring attention to the situation, but I got too emotional and perhaps I went about it the wrong way. I'm sorry for my behavior. Gigman (talk) 22:04, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

...Ivanvector, for your recent reply at Liz's page. All good, and thanks esp. for the timesaving insight regarding Talk post access. On a separate matter, perhaps look in on the post I left for that Admin, today. It regards the behavior of a newer editor—we've been editing for most of WP's existence—which includes Talk page blanking, and knee-jerk and disparaging responses to IP editing. We'll return tomorrow and elevate the editorially substantive article matters, if that editor does not cool off and self-revert. The concern at hand is that this ~2-year SME/subject-dedicated editor may be treating others as he has today treated us. Cheers. ~2025-42222-78 (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

P.S. I didn't realise that you yourself were an Admin. Congrats, and as such, proceed on the foregoing as you think best for the encyclopedia. Cheers. ~2025-42222-78 (talk) 22:57, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello there. I would like to inquire about a topic ban appeal you recently granted to User:ChimaFan12. They have returned to employing such bludgeoning tactics on MCU articles, which led to their initial topic ban, and have violated their pledge to only make constructive edits to these articles, as stated in their appeal. Such disruptive tactics, characterized of repeated behavior, may be observed in the Talk:Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase Six and Talk:Marvel Cinematic Universe timeline and their respective articles. They seem unwilling to engage with any consensus that does not support what they believe is true, just like they did in 2023, which led to their topic ban, and are once again abusing an RfC to try and get their way, while also ignoring advice counter to their approach at WP:Teahouse#Navigating topic activity following a topic unban. ChimaFan is continually wasting editors' time and failing to get the point. I would like to know what next steps may be in order to help resolve this matter, and believe their topic ban may not have been enough, considering they are already in violation of their appeal. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 18:12, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi Ivanvector, I like to make you aware that I've started a new topic on the talk page on the Michoud Assembly Facility article that aims to (hopefully) resolve the issue surrounding the Chris A. Hadfield Rocket Factory nickname for a workshop on-site versus it being a hoax, as perported by what appears to be one person arguing about it.

When you read it, you'll see that I did some 'dectective work' and my conclusion is that there appears to be a conflict of interest violation goin on. I suspect that one individual who works at NASA is responsible for aggressively pushing a one-sided view or argument that CAHRF is a hoax, in contrary to internet sources (from which I found) to describe the opposite from my understanding. While my talk page essay has it in full, here is one instance that attribute to his rather unprofessional conduct: User_talk:198.120.15.117

I tried several times to add the clarification on the article in good faith but this person (judging by his writing style and tone of language in his edit reverts, not Infrogmation) behind all the IP users and temporary accounts, keeps removing the references with the same or similar blunt message. I feel that this is likely a personal grudge rather than an objective reality that he claims to be arguing without proof. I looked at his latest contribution and saw that he tried to get the article protected, but you correctly stated it is not neccesary at this time without review and consensus with hard evidence. Also, the user appears to be build rapport or form a friendship with another Wikipedia administrator from 2023.

I would appreciate if you can take a look at these and the edit war going on, and determinie that it is really a violation of the conflict of interest policy (i.e someone with a close connection to the subject) rather than an independent editor. Thank you. ~2025-41998-13 (talk) 22:03, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Ivanvector,

An editor just emptied Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of StayCalmOnTress and so, with it Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of StayCalmOnTress. Because sockpuppets' masters regularly shift around, I'm used to seeing empty sockpuppet categories and deleting ones that are no longer relevant but this is such a well-known sockpuppet master that I didn't want to delete these categories without an okay from someone familiar with SPI goings on. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:49, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

@Liz: oops! I forgot to delete the categories. PEIsquirrel is my alt, I prefer not to connect my admin account to AWB. I'll take care of those categories. Thanks for the heads-up. The sockmaster activated a very old sleeper recently, and I've been sitting on the rename for a bit. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 04:52, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Oh, I never would have guessed that editor was your alt. Still glad I checked in. Most of the time, this empty sockmasters categories are not very well-known sockmasters but in this case, even I've come across SCOT's puppets! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:34, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

This is back at DRV on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2026 January 23, if you feel up to intervening again. —Cryptic 01:21, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification on Nobots. Crafterstar (talk) 21:38, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Ivanvector, per your previous instruction to ping you if the account returns, it seems the same user is back with a new sockpuppet account. Here is the account ~2026-69723-6. Thanks for your help. FranéRogoz (talk) 11:37, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Ivanvector, this is about an RfC we previously discussed: I have just noticed that the RfC template (scheduled to expire on 26 January 2026) on the list of oldest universities was removed by a bot on 13 Jan (all that remains is "{{anchor|rfc_9A1DE3E}}" in the source but the tag is gone from Talk) — could that be why this RfC went quiet weeks before its stated auto-expiry? Does this indicate that someone interfered with the RfC? Tinterest (talk) 15:54, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Ivanvector, have you had a chance to look into this? It is urgent as bots began delisting the RfC. Tinterest (talk) 17:48, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't know what there is for me to review here: the discussion has very obviously run its course and there is very clearly consensus against including UNB in the list. As for the technical aspect: I guess the bot must have logged a timestamp from when it added the RFC ID on 14 December, and came back again to remove it 30 days later, despite my attempt to "relist" it. The bot did remove the entry from the main RFC listing page, but links to the discussion that were posted elsewhere still work, that's what the anchor is for. That's clearly not why the discussion tapered off, anyway, there had been no new comments for nearly two weeks before the bot removed the ID. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:39, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

But procedural issues from before remain relevant, and these editors continue to pose problems, including piling up irrelevant discussions on the same Talk page to bury the RFC. Robminchin, whom you previously reprimanded along with another editor, has continued to act inappropriately without consequence, yet he and the same editors are now treated as if they produced a “clear consensus” against including UNB. In fact, most of those who voted “Nay” admit they never read, understood, or participated in the discussion. This is anything but a consensus — it reads more like a bad joke. The idea that a semi-automated bot could remove the RFC tag weeks ahead of its expiration seems equally far-fetched. Could the RFC tag be re-added and any issues addressed, including sanctioning editors who act as though they “own” the list and who turned the whole RFC into a charade? Tinterest (talk) 00:47, 3 February 2026 (UTC)