User talk:Ivanvector

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

More torrent sockpuppeteering

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)

Invitation to discuss the soon to be built, Interaction Timeline

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.

Regarding Kostas20142

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)

Talkback

Hello, Ivanvector. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:2017–18 Big 12 Conference men's basketball season.
Message added 06:22, 12 October 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hamtechperson 06:22, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ralphellis/Archive needs additional data

See [1]== 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 [2]. 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)

hello. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Phyllisshandallfrey1996

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)

Please comment on Talk:Timeline of the Trump presidency, 2017 Q3

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)

Reflection

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)

SPIarchive notice

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#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)

PATTISSON

See also: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PATTISSON

I was disappointed to see the comment about the outcome of the sock puppet investigation. Let me explain myself. I inadvertently created a new account (JohnGT) forgetting that I was already registered as JGTolhurst. I have been involved for some time in trying to correct some errors in reporting that were made by the Fly Navy Heritage Trust and Navy PR in reporting the story of Jock Moffat. These also occur in the Wikipedia entry for Jock Moffat. In attempting to edit the entry I had no intention of undermining the character of this brave aviator nor of upsetting his family after his death. My concern was and remains to ensure that the facts that emerged following the dive on the wreck of the BISMARCK are correctly reported. A definitive account was prepared by Graham Mottram, the then curator of the Fleet Air Arm Museum, and endorsed by the Head of the Royal Navy's Historical Branch. This clearly stated that the torpedo which crippled the ship had been fired from her starboard side and could not, therefore have been dropped by Moffat who attacked from the port side. That in no way diminishes the respect we should have for the courage of all those who took part in the strike. It would, however, be a shame if Wikipedia continues to ignore the facts and perpetuates an incorrect version of events. JGTolhurst (talk) 11:43, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi JGTolhurst, I apologize that it's taken me longer to reply to this than it ought to have. Regarding the sockpuppet investigation, inadvertently creating a new account when you already have one is not necessarily against our policy, so long as you don't then use both accounts to appear as two individuals, or use a second account to edit if your first account is blocked. I don't think you did, but I interpreted "you may well get correspondence from Lord Boyce" as a statement going against our no legal threats policy - while it may not be a legal threat per se to threaten a response from a high-ranking military officer in a civilian environment, it was clearly a forceful use of authority to create a chilling effect. This is a collaborative project and we don't allow such posturing.

Regarding John Moffat (Royal Navy officer) and your edits there, I applaud your effort to correct the historical record, and it seems you're in a good position to do so with access to military historians. The problem with trying to do that on Wikipedia is that Wikipedia relies on information being verifiable to published, independent reliable sources. At this point in time, the sources that appear to be available all seem to agree with the claim that Moffat's torpedo crippled Bismarck's steering, leaving her vulnerable to the next day's fatal heavy bombardment when she would have otherwise escaped to France. The counter-claim that Moffat's torpedo could not have delivered the crippling blow does not appear to have been published, and so we cannot use it; Wikipedia does not publish original thought, and also does not allow synthesis of published sources (such as Cameron's video) to assert novel conclusions not stated by those sources. The path to correcting this error on Wikipedia starts with getting the Fly Navy Heritage Trust (or some other authority) to publish Mottram's findings, and for independent sources to agree that his account is definitive. Perhaps this has already happened, and you know of such a publication?

Please let me know if I can help otherwise, or you may find editors more familiar with this sort of situation at WikiProject Military History. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:10, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

"Pearl-clutcher"

Mr. Driftwood!

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

Continued harassment regarding the SPI case

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 - [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] DRN - [9] [10] [11] User talk page: [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] (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. [17]), while making comments such as My advice for the so called "Robert" was clear enough [18] or interpreting these statements by Dr.K. [19][20] as "There you accused me of possibly having a shared account and etc" [21] 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)