User talk:Ivanvector
 | 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. |
_(cropped).jpg) | Because of bees, I will be intermittently unavailable for unpredictable intervals for the next several weeks. The best way to contact me for urgent matters is to leave a message on this page, or email using the form above for possibly sensitive issues. Messages left here prior to 26 March 2018 have been archived. |
 Archives (Index) |
|
This page is archived by ClueBot III.
|
Sock?
Hi Ivanvector. Not sure I'm aware of the whole story with this one, but they seemed to be targeting/stalking past edits of yours. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 20:03, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Paul Erik: heh, neat. That's VJ-Yugo. Targeting my edits is new, I guess I'll have to keep an eye on that. Thanks. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:22, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- Or maybe it's Hillbillyholiday. Doesn't matter, they're spinning their wheels with their petty reversion campaign. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:24, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
CU-tag User:Cypriotgenious
Re your question: the tag was added by DoRD, so I'd say the CU-check was made by them (to confirm "behavioural evidence"...). - Tom | Thomas.W talk 14:18, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks. I wasn't arguing that a check wasn't done, but I guess I could pay better attention to who added the tag. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Does this close seem proper to you
I was surprised to see this close which seems to say that a community ban discussion is the wrong question and that evasion is a ban(?). This admin has made similar premature closes in my experience. What do you think?- MrX 🖋 15:18, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- @MrX: I think I've put enough energy into it, to be honest. That discussion didn't go at all the way I thought it would and I'm honestly happy someone put a lid on it before someone said something really stupid about what when it's totally okaysies to ignore all the rules, or to pick and choose which ones to follow and which ones are best to wipe your ass with. Best to just leave it be, in my opinion. (Courtesy ping JzG) Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:24, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- OK.- MrX 🖋 15:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- @MrX: but, also, Guy might have been referring to WP:THREESTRIKES, or perhaps the provision in the banning policy which states that [e]ditors who are or remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community". HBH has a very good case to appeal their restrictions as many editors view their edits as valuable, but if they choose not to do that and continue evading their block instead, our policies support reverting their edits and blocking their IPs, and I intend to continue doing so. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:41, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- It's quite simple. If the user is the serial block-evader then they may be considered banned by default. If they dispute it then they need to appeal the original block. We block people, not accounts. A "Vote For Banning" makes it harder for an innocent party to get unblocked and provides exactly no change over the status quo if they genuinely are guilty of serial block evasion. Guy (Help!) 17:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- @MrX: but, also, Guy might have been referring to WP:THREESTRIKES, or perhaps the provision in the banning policy which states that [e]ditors who are or remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community". HBH has a very good case to appeal their restrictions as many editors view their edits as valuable, but if they choose not to do that and continue evading their block instead, our policies support reverting their edits and blocking their IPs, and I intend to continue doing so. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:41, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- OK.- MrX 🖋 15:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Invitation to WikiProject Portals
The Portals WikiProject has been rebooted.
You are invited to join, and participate in the effort to revitalize and improve the Portal system and all the portals in it.
There are sections on the WikiProject page dedicated to tasks (including WikiGnome tasks too), and areas on the talk page for discussing the improvement and automation of the various features of portals.
Many complaints have been lodged in the RfC to delete all portals, pointing out their various problems. They say that many portals are not maintained, or have fallen out of date, are useless, etc. Many of the !votes indicate that the editors who posted them simply don't believe in the potential of portals anymore.
It's time to change all that. Let's give them reasons to believe in portals, by revitalizing them.
The best response to a deletion nomination is to fix the page that was nominated. The further underway the effort is to improve portals by the time the RfC has run its course, the more of the reasons against portals will no longer apply. RfCs typically run 30 days. There are 19 days left in this one. Let's see how many portals we can update and improve before the RfC is closed, and beyond.
A healthy WikiProject dedicated to supporting and maintaining portals may be the strongest argument of all not to delete.
We may even surprise ourselves and exceed all expectations. Who knows what we will be able to accomplish in what may become the biggest Wikicollaboration in years.
Let's do this.
See ya at the WikiProject!
Sincerely, — The Transhumanist 10:21, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Wiki Loves Earth in Canada 2018
Hi Ivan! I see that you've removed the upload links to Commons on the List of national parks in Canada. Is there a specific reason for this? It would be really helpful for documentation and illustration purposes to have these links the whole year round, not only during the contest period. :-) Best, Braveheart (talk) 10:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Braveheart, thanks for your note. The links you added were specifically identified as an unencyclopedic element which disqualified the list from featured status. As part of an expansive effort to update and improve the list to restore it to a featured list, the links were removed. I thought I pinned you at the time, but if not I apologize. As I recall the links were not coded correctly anyway: clicking on one did not bring the user to an upload process for the individual parks but for the list itself. I do support linking to the Commons project and encouraging media uploads, but there ought to be a way to do so which doesn't interfere with English Wikipedia content processes. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 11:22, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
- If you're interested, the featured list review is here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 11:27, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
- No problem! When I check an old version with links, this link uploads pictures and automatically adds the identifier for the park to every picture.
- As for the content processes - why shouldn't there be links to a commons category for every park and the ability to contribute not only text but also multimedia content to the individual parks? There are ways of making the upload button and Commons link less obvious (or irritating), if that's better suited for this list. Braveheart (talk) 11:31, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
- P.S.: Thanks for the link to the review, I'm not sure how one comment without a reference to a guideline makes upload links unencyclopaedic. In case the guidelines for featured lists don't allow for links to other projects, why bother with the feature list review in the first place? Braveheart (talk) 11:38, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Braveheart: well, admittedly, removing the links in the first place was kind of a knee-jerk reaction to the original delisting comment, but throughout the course of the review we did have to decide on what information to include in the improved table and what to cut, due to limited real estate, so it's likely the links would have eventually been removed in favour of some other information anyway. But as far as encouraging users to upload multimedia content, I support the project and have plans on contributing myself when the weather is better in my province, but there should be a way to do this without taking up space that would be better used for content. Would a banner work, if it was placed at the top of the article or directly above the table? There are many pages that use a {{commons}} or {{commons category}} template to place a small link under the article's external links section, including the National Parks list actually, but I think that's not what you're going for. Would you mind if I raised this issue at one of the village pumps? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:49, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
- Not at all :-) And as mentioned, there are options to add smaller icons for the commons categories and upload links that would not look as ugly - admittedly I didn't have that much time last year to make a decent-looking alternative.
- And thanks for being interested in WLE - you're always welcome to join the group of organisers if you're interested in improving some of the other lists for the provincial parks :-) Braveheart (talk) 19:16, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Braveheart: well, admittedly, removing the links in the first place was kind of a knee-jerk reaction to the original delisting comment, but throughout the course of the review we did have to decide on what information to include in the improved table and what to cut, due to limited real estate, so it's likely the links would have eventually been removed in favour of some other information anyway. But as far as encouraging users to upload multimedia content, I support the project and have plans on contributing myself when the weather is better in my province, but there should be a way to do this without taking up space that would be better used for content. Would a banner work, if it was placed at the top of the article or directly above the table? There are many pages that use a {{commons}} or {{commons category}} template to place a small link under the article's external links section, including the National Parks list actually, but I think that's not what you're going for. Would you mind if I raised this issue at one of the village pumps? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:49, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
TFL notification
Hi, Ivanvector. I'm just posting to let you know that List of National Parks of Canada – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for May 18. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 01:29, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Bazaan
Thank you for looking at that SPI. The reason behind including inactive accounts is that they can become active anytime if left unblocked so would you be kind enough to look at the other accounts as well because Bazaan has a habit of activating sleepers years later and we would still have to deal with them behaviorally as there will not be any guarantee that there will be another account to run CU against. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:10, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
- Hi sheriffIsInTown, I realize I owe you a reply to this, but I got distracted by some other stuff. I did look through the two case archives but I don't really see evidence that the sockmaster often reactivates old accounts, it looks to me a lot more like they create sleepers and activate them once, sometimes a long time afterwards, but once they abandon one they don't go back. It's not possible to Checkuser them when they're as old as those inactive accounts were, and there's confusion now between the two cases, so I think it's best to wait for them to edit. I'll go back and take another look at the archive. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:36, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply and a second look. I started looking at their history in detail and finding quite a few big similarities. I hope you do not mind to look at the evidence once I file it. Since, I am investing time on collecting evidence, I would like to post the evidence as a new SPI instead of your talk page. I hope that is fine with you. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- @SheriffIsInTown: if you're just compiling evidence on inactive accounts I think it would be better if you emailed me. Otherwise another clerk might see your report first and be upset that I already said you shouldn't report inactive accounts. If something needs to be updated in the case I'll take care of it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:54, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- In your inbox. Thanks again for taking a gander one more time, the text might look huge and clumsy in the email so if it is easier for you then I can create new SPI and mention in the summary line something like "already discussed with Ivanvector". Appreciate your hard work for keeping Wikipedia safe. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:56, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- @SheriffIsInTown: if you're just compiling evidence on inactive accounts I think it would be better if you emailed me. Otherwise another clerk might see your report first and be upset that I already said you shouldn't report inactive accounts. If something needs to be updated in the case I'll take care of it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:54, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply and a second look. I started looking at their history in detail and finding quite a few big similarities. I hope you do not mind to look at the evidence once I file it. Since, I am investing time on collecting evidence, I would like to post the evidence as a new SPI instead of your talk page. I hope that is fine with you. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- Hi, Ivanvector, did you get a chance to ponder over the email? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:05, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
BLPSOURCES
Hi Ivanvector. I noticed this revert. Can you please be very careful in the future not to restore material sourced to tabloid journalism as you did there? --John (talk) 15:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
- Banned means banned, John. If we're not even going to bother trying to enforce a highly disruptive editor's indefinite block, stop pretending it means shit and unblock them. It'll save me a lot of button pushing. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:55, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
- I see. So you value following your interpretation of Wikipedia rules over preventing damage to real life subjects? That seems... counter-intuitive, don't you think? --John (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
- Perhaps if this editor ever took your advice, or anyone's, or in the case of this edit they made any effort at all to explain why the article subject's own words ought to be considered damaging to that subject to a degree requiring immediate removal under the BLP policy, and not just part of an ongoing bull-headed crusade to expunge one particular source from Wikipedia, they might not have earned a community 1RR restriction to stop their disruptive behaviour, repeated ignorance of which leaves them indefinitely blocked by a progression of administrators acting in good faith. Frankly, your ongoing encouragement of this misconduct is unbecoming an administrator, is insulting to the community which placed the restriction, and does no service to the policy you (and I) hold in such high regard. Your time and energy would be much better spent admonishing this behaviour and encouraging other potential crusaders to not get started in the first place. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:42, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
- That's all good stuff, but you didn't answer the question. Never mind, I'll answer it for you. BLP trumps all other Wikipedia policies. If you want to go to AN/I to complain about this or rely in the future on using it in an unblock notice that the contrary applies, that'll be your own choice, but don't say you weren't politely warned. --John (talk) 19:48, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
- Perhaps if this editor ever took your advice, or anyone's, or in the case of this edit they made any effort at all to explain why the article subject's own words ought to be considered damaging to that subject to a degree requiring immediate removal under the BLP policy, and not just part of an ongoing bull-headed crusade to expunge one particular source from Wikipedia, they might not have earned a community 1RR restriction to stop their disruptive behaviour, repeated ignorance of which leaves them indefinitely blocked by a progression of administrators acting in good faith. Frankly, your ongoing encouragement of this misconduct is unbecoming an administrator, is insulting to the community which placed the restriction, and does no service to the policy you (and I) hold in such high regard. Your time and energy would be much better spent admonishing this behaviour and encouraging other potential crusaders to not get started in the first place. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:42, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
- I see. So you value following your interpretation of Wikipedia rules over preventing damage to real life subjects? That seems... counter-intuitive, don't you think? --John (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions advice
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Template:Z33--John (talk) 19:53, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
- You're being a bit of a jerk, aren't you, John? (A notice of DS is not "mandatory".)--Bbb23 (talk) 20:01, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
- I edit conflicted with Bbb23 as I was leaving a similar comment. You can be "right" without coming off as an officious bully, or at least you can if you're doing it right. Nobody on this project is going to respond well to this type of aggressive rebuking. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
SPI
Can I ask on what basis you have closed this SPI, without taking into account what I see as rather compelling and obvious evidence. I really do not think you've put much thought into this, and would like to urge you to reconsider based on WP:DUCK. Mar4d (talk) 16:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- I've closed it based on my conclusion that the two users are not sockpuppets. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:23, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- I would like to know how you reached that conclusion, taking into account the behavioural evidence. How do you explain the lone edits on the war articles, or even the most minute details like incorrect use of "despite" which is visible to the blind eye IMO. It's rather perplexing. Mar4d (talk) 16:26, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- The technical result is compelling evidence that the two users are not related, and I don't find the behavioural evidence as convincing as SheriffIsInTown's allies in the long POV war. It's true that there is a lot of sockpuppetry in the topic area covered by WP:ARBIPA, and I accept Sandstein's observation that MapSGV might be somebody's sock, but I'm not convinced in any way that that account is being operated by Capitals00; again, the technical result suggests that is not the case. The "details" you mention are remarkably consistent idiosyncrasies of Indian English editors, as Kautilya3 observed, and as others have observed in the history of this case. The fact that Capitals00 used a sock once many years in the past is not evidence that they've learned how to sock "better" now - CheckUsers are much more capable of detecting deliberate obfuscation than everyone seems to think - and repeating that assertion every time there's a new editor in the topic area is a borderline personal attack. There's very consistent evidence that Capitals00 has gone many years not repeating that indiscretion, and it is going to take much better evidence than idiosyncratic English to convince SPI clerks otherwise. This wasn't the most frivolous filing in the several years that I've been aware of this SPI, but it's up there. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- I'm sure there are many idiosyncrasies that are consistent in India, however there are some that are peculiar to a certain editor, and I don't see how something as unique as "despite" or the extremely limited vocabulary ("frivolous", "incompetence", amongst them other words overused by both) qualify in the former. I have been editing in the India topic area for years, and have come across Indian editors (with good to terrible English) and have never found any of these "consistent" idiosyncrasies that I found amongst these two accounts. Even the use of commas, sentence pauses, and basic grammar structure is the same which is too good to be true. You would expect there to be subtle differences if there were two different editors. I'm not very convinced, and a deeper analysis would show there is certainly more than meets the eye. It also does not explain why Capitals00 after months restored MapSGV's exact same edits on obscure articles like these [1] [2] [3] [4], which Capitals00 never edited before, when these two had no interaction, and when MapSGV's own edit count was less than 20. Mar4d (talk) 17:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- You can be right, generally, that a behavioural analysis can reveal that two accounts edit in similar styles, with similar language quirks, in similar topic areas, back up each other's sides of content disputes, and many other telltale behaviours which are often signs that two accounts are being operated by the same person, and in isolation we often do block after such a connection is established. We do check these things, and thoroughly; there's not a backlog of 100 or so cases because we're rushing through them and ignoring evidence. However, when I have a checkuser telling me that these two accounts are editing at the same time from distant locations in (I'm assuming) a very large country, a conjectural analysis of the two accounts' language similarities and common (but not exactly unique) points of view in a hotly contested topic area isn't enough to convince me that the technical data is wrong. Sometimes we might review the technical data in comparison with the behavioural analysis and conclude that meatpuppetry is possible, but who's going to say that all of the editors supporting one side of a dispute are meatpuppets but all the editors supporting the other side are not? It's not going to be me. If you feel that Capitals00 and MapSGV are disruptive influences within the topic area then WP:ANI and/or WP:AE are available to you to review their conduct, but I remain convinced they are not each other's sockpuppets. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- Frivolous SPI aside, Mar4d (who was himself a sock) has already begged enough admins[5][6] to get me blocked because he dislikes that India defeated Pakistan in Siachen conflict. Even his own diffs are contradicting what he is saying just like his own references and arguments (that he copied from a banned sock-puppeting editor "Freeatlastchitchat") always contradicted him on Talk:Siachen conflict[7][8] and he was just repeating himself due to his POV and lack of knowledge about the subject. Every editor has opposed Mar4d's problematic behavior on talk page.[9][10][11][12] It may offend Mar4d but clearly every editor is talking about his problematic behavior and he should think of reforming instead of becoming more problematic. I haven't come across any editors with this much incompetence that they can't even understand simple English including an easy fact about India's victory in Siachen conflict except Mar4d and Freeatlastchitchat who also claim that it is the only war in the world that ended in a "ceasefire" without any results. That is very suspicious. Mar4d should find some other hobby. I was in India in February but I got back to my country Jordan in the starting days of March. Yunshui would agree, maybe that's why he stated "locations are disparate". — MapSGV (talk) 12:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- You can be right, generally, that a behavioural analysis can reveal that two accounts edit in similar styles, with similar language quirks, in similar topic areas, back up each other's sides of content disputes, and many other telltale behaviours which are often signs that two accounts are being operated by the same person, and in isolation we often do block after such a connection is established. We do check these things, and thoroughly; there's not a backlog of 100 or so cases because we're rushing through them and ignoring evidence. However, when I have a checkuser telling me that these two accounts are editing at the same time from distant locations in (I'm assuming) a very large country, a conjectural analysis of the two accounts' language similarities and common (but not exactly unique) points of view in a hotly contested topic area isn't enough to convince me that the technical data is wrong. Sometimes we might review the technical data in comparison with the behavioural analysis and conclude that meatpuppetry is possible, but who's going to say that all of the editors supporting one side of a dispute are meatpuppets but all the editors supporting the other side are not? It's not going to be me. If you feel that Capitals00 and MapSGV are disruptive influences within the topic area then WP:ANI and/or WP:AE are available to you to review their conduct, but I remain convinced they are not each other's sockpuppets. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- I'm sure there are many idiosyncrasies that are consistent in India, however there are some that are peculiar to a certain editor, and I don't see how something as unique as "despite" or the extremely limited vocabulary ("frivolous", "incompetence", amongst them other words overused by both) qualify in the former. I have been editing in the India topic area for years, and have come across Indian editors (with good to terrible English) and have never found any of these "consistent" idiosyncrasies that I found amongst these two accounts. Even the use of commas, sentence pauses, and basic grammar structure is the same which is too good to be true. You would expect there to be subtle differences if there were two different editors. I'm not very convinced, and a deeper analysis would show there is certainly more than meets the eye. It also does not explain why Capitals00 after months restored MapSGV's exact same edits on obscure articles like these [1] [2] [3] [4], which Capitals00 never edited before, when these two had no interaction, and when MapSGV's own edit count was less than 20. Mar4d (talk) 17:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- The technical result is compelling evidence that the two users are not related, and I don't find the behavioural evidence as convincing as SheriffIsInTown's allies in the long POV war. It's true that there is a lot of sockpuppetry in the topic area covered by WP:ARBIPA, and I accept Sandstein's observation that MapSGV might be somebody's sock, but I'm not convinced in any way that that account is being operated by Capitals00; again, the technical result suggests that is not the case. The "details" you mention are remarkably consistent idiosyncrasies of Indian English editors, as Kautilya3 observed, and as others have observed in the history of this case. The fact that Capitals00 used a sock once many years in the past is not evidence that they've learned how to sock "better" now - CheckUsers are much more capable of detecting deliberate obfuscation than everyone seems to think - and repeating that assertion every time there's a new editor in the topic area is a borderline personal attack. There's very consistent evidence that Capitals00 has gone many years not repeating that indiscretion, and it is going to take much better evidence than idiosyncratic English to convince SPI clerks otherwise. This wasn't the most frivolous filing in the several years that I've been aware of this SPI, but it's up there. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- I would like to know how you reached that conclusion, taking into account the behavioural evidence. How do you explain the lone edits on the war articles, or even the most minute details like incorrect use of "despite" which is visible to the blind eye IMO. It's rather perplexing. Mar4d (talk) 16:26, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
case request: Questionable BLP reverts by blocked editors
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, I would like to inform you that your withdrawn case request has been archived.
Best regards, Kostas20142 (talk) 17:25, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Semi-protected
Hi Ivanvector, briefly semi-protected this page for reasons evident in the page history. Hope that's ok, and obviously do with the protection as you will on return. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:33, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Event coordinator proposal
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Event coordinator proposal. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
see edits on Bangladesh. the new sock is active for revert old edits. Thanks in advance!---2A00:A200:0:826:6596:3AA3:211:3266 (talk) 13:16, 7 May 2018 (UTC)