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.

Shingling334

Hello. FYI Shingling's geolocation is no secret, he has even mentioned it himself, and the IP in the case leads to a provider that Shingling has used before, and a geolocation (which in the UK is the nearest NOC, usually within 20-25 miles or so of the actual location) that is only just over 15 miles southwest of their actual geolocation, so there's no doubt at all about it being him. It's not his usual IP-range, though, since his usual range has been rangeblocked... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Understood, and thanks. The IP hadn't edited in 5 days by the time I got to the report, though. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:25, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Category:Descendants_of_John_Ames_(born_1647)

Dear Ivan, IMHO, the discussion about Category:Descendants_of_John_Ames_(born_1647) should have been relisted in an attempt to obtain better feedback and consensus. Can you please enlighten me as to why a relisting was not in order? Please ping me when you respond. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:48, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jax 0677: I prefer to close discussions when they show up at ANRFC, which I interpret as a request for an admin to step in and end the discussion, not just kick the can down the road by relisting. The last few comments in this discussion were separated by five days, two full weeks, and another two full weeks plus a day; it seemed to me to have run its course with the only consensus emerging being against your original proposal. If I were to relist, my relisting comment would be "Consensus is clearly against merging these categories, but should the nominated category be deleted?" Should I do that, or just leave it? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:31, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

• Reply - I think that given the number of delete votes, that a discussion about whether or not to delete the category should take place, as the discussion has NEVER been relisted. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:38, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jax 0677: fair enough. I'll take care of it in a few minutes, I'm about to run to a meeting. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:40, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Am I too late?

I just added Orchitaakter to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Abdullah Zubayer then noticed you'd called it as closed, though not yet done all the closing magic. I can submit a new report if it's too late. Thanks, Cabayi (talk) 15:54, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

@Cabayi: thanks for this, I'm going to consult with the CheckUsers on how best to handle the other account. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:47, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Wow, what a kettle of fish that turned out to be. Thanks for chasing it down. Cabayi (talk) 19:29, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

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)

"Innocent party" are you really going to call what he's done innocent? --Tarage (talk) 19:54, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

This is probably enough, you guys, actually. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:22, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Please note the strategic use of the word "if". Guy (Help!) 12:41, 19 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}} oder {{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)

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	Nice work pushing this RFC through! L293D (☎ • ✎) 22:28, 25 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)

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)

Aggressively ignorant notice

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

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 Ponyo^{bons 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)