User talk:Ivanvector

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Please comment on Talk:Rodrigo Duterte

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Rodrigo Duterte. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Ivanvector. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Astudent0/Archive

IP editor 204.126.132.231 is static IP, which belongs to Howard Community College. geolocate and University.

This IP also overlapped with the four editors in multiple AFDs.

I found this IP from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mdtemp/Archive.

And Astudent0's first edit in Wikipedia was in the article Howard Community College. --Marvellous Spider-Man 14:13, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, yeah, these editors have been analyzed to death already. I know about the Mdtemp case but there's really nothing that can be done regarding the IP at the moment. Thanks for pointing it out though. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:08, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I saw the case was archived. As PRehse was accusing me using weak evidences, I considered that I could add another evidence. The IP is inactive. Probably Astudent0 has completed his course and left the college. The administrators supported my evidences, but PRehse and TheGracefulSlick was not happy with the SPI as User_talk:PRehse#comment, User_talk:Papaursa#Do_not_lose_faith. I did not include PRehse in the SPI case report, though he tried to include himself? Bbb23 advised him not to keep irrelevant comments in the SPI. Marvellous Spider-Man 16:40, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I feel I must point out that I had nothing against the sockpuppet case on everyone, just Papuarsa. I do not know the other editors enough to make a judgement like I did with Papaursa. I hope my mere opinion on something on a talk page that was more to encourage an (understandably) disgruntled user is not taken out of context and used to involve me in this. But seriously, Marvellous Spider-Man just give it a rest, the case has been closed.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:02, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

• Ivanvector, I have reviewed the sockpuppet case and have a question. I am confused, why was Mdtemp not CUed like the other accounts? I feel like the behavioral evidence, like for Papuarsa, can be considered circumstantial, and Mdtemp was incorrectly blocked. Is it possible to CU the account or reopen the case to see if he/she needs to be unblocked? If the CU finds no match wouldn't that be a reason to doubt the findings?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:35, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, that's odd. I was pretty certain that Mdtemp was checked at the same time as the other accounts, but there is no result indicated. Maybe Mike V and Bbb23 can shed light on that. At any rate I found the behavioural connection between Mdtemp and the others far stronger than for Papaursa. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 01:42, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

No check was run.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:57, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Bbb23 can a CU or something else be done? I know this is late in the game, but Mdtemp was an important voice at martial arts-related discussions. I just feel he/she was misrepresented by the behavioral evidence acting as the sole reasoning behind the block. A CU can either enhance my fears or confirm the ruling.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Mdtemp (talk · contribs · count) is  Stale.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:13, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Well of course he is - he's been blocked. OK that's hyperbole - his last edit was shortly before the very long running SPI investigation. People react to these things in different ways - some vigorously defend others throw their hands up and say I don't need this ..... So no idea why he stopped editing - but I still strongly believe he was hard done by. Lifting the block probably won't get him back so I suppose this discussion is useless.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

(nit-picking) If you're saying an account is stale just because it's blocked, that's not true.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:03, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Hence the self point to hyperbole. But it certainly looks like he stopped editing because of the SPI investigation although his habit over the years (of good editing by the way) was to take extended breaks from 2 weeks to well over a month).Peter Rehse (talk) 15:09, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

And the "Hyperbole" can explain why three editors Astudent), Jakjr and Mdtemp stopped editing in August 2016 with no unblock request. Previous SPIs didn't stop them from editing? Marvellous Spider-Man 16:24, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Mdtemp was checked against this set of accounts in July 2012 and seems to have been between  Possible and  Unlikely at that time, although I'm not sure I'm interpreting AGK's comment correctly and there's a history of unclear CheckUser results in this case. Anyway, if Mdtemp wants to appeal their block, their first step is contacting JamesBWatson. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:21, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh well, thanks though Ivanvector, at least you did thorough research into this. I strongly believe Mdtemp was unjustly knocked out of here, another mistep I have seen recently in these cases. A CU should have been performed, no reason why it shouldn't have been and Bbb23's bogus excuse is no good justification. I sometimes interacted with Mdtemp and he/she had solid opinions on Afds. Yet, admins can toss him/her aside, but take nearly a year to finally indef block a notorious trouble-maker like CrazyAces489, who was in the same field of work. Sorry for the little rant; I'm just tired of the inconsistency of this process.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:28, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Bbb23's "excuse" is not "bogus", it's just that CheckUser data purges automatically after 90 days, and Mdtemp has not edited in that time frame so there's nothing to check. To PRehse's point about Mdtemp stopping editing, I'm not terribly convinced of that. Mdtemp's history shows quite a few regular gaps of several months at a time that don't seem to have anything to do with anything in particular, and they had stopped editing before the sockpuppet investigation in this case. It has been inconsistent here because this has been a challenging case, with different eyes, different technical results and different opinions over a fairly long time period, and never anything particularly conclusive being found. I certainly expect this isn't the last of it, but just at the moment there's nothing we can really do here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:35, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Holtj

"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 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. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I see that dispute resolution didn't work, although I can't really follow what happened there. You might be able to get some input from WP:FTN for example, or perhaps you could go to WP:3O and try to summarize the dispute. Like I said the topic is outside my wheelhouse, but I dislike the idea of discarding potentially useful information just because of a user who will not stop socking. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 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 Wikipedia. "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. Deryck C. 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 two-thirds plurality. 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 appointed electors 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 build the most roads, or who will fund public libraries, sometimes the electorate chooses the candidate who won't blow up the stadium, and sometimes we pick the candidate who yells the loudest or looks the nicest on TV. It's incredibly broken, but it seems to be exactly what the community wants. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 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. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:36, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

That's an amazing comment. I'll copy it (with citation of course) for future reference... Deryck C. 18:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

SPI case that needs to be closed

If you've got a free minute, could you close Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CommanderShinzon? The sock was blocked following discussion at User talk:C.Fred#Obvious sock. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 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. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 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. Bearcat (talk) 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 JarrahTree 12:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I get it, but I'm sure you can see from the list of cases at WP:SPI 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. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 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 JarrahTree 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.72.220 (talk) 17:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Just acknowledging that I've read this, I'm busy at the moment but will respond later. Cheers. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Moving to the article's talk page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

SCC theory et al.

Hi there Ivanvector. I've just commented in your recent RfD nomination of SCC theory 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. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 15:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@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 {{subst:rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=[name of redirect]|target=[name of target]}} below the list of redirects and above my nomination statement. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 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. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 15:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I see. Yeah, some of those ought to go. I'll take a look through them. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:43, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Closing MfDs

Just a quick note in regard to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Sentence strips, uses, and conundrums: the {{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 {{nac}} template or something along those lines when closing discussions there myself. Warmest Regards, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 08:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

@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! Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:04, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Vladimir Putin

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Vladimir Putin. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 19 December 2016 (UTC)