Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SheriffIsInTown (talk | contribs) at 18:39, 19 October 2016 (Re: Bbb23). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:DailyBracketBot

Welcome to my talk page! If you are adding a new comment section, please post your new topic at the bottom of this page. If your comment is about an article, please consider adding the comment to the article's talk page, instead of adding it here. Misplaced Pages is a community effort, and other editors might have valuable opinions. You could add a comment here to let me know about your comment on the article's talk page. If I think your comment is about an article I may move it there and leave a note here saying I did so. I absolutely hate conversations that thread across multiple pages. If you add a comment here, I will reply here. If I left a comment on your talk page and you reply here, I will move your reply back to your talk page. Please add this page to your watchlist to be informed when I reply. Thanks for stopping by! ⇒ Start a new Talk topic.

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Kosszonom szepen

Thanks for the wb. There is always a time when my infuriation at minor errors and slips and stuff in Misplaced Pages outweigh, over the days, my infuriation at the people who cannot see why I am infuriated. I do think there are things wrong with banning someone immediately when they voice any legal concern – because then they have no chance to explain themselves, without subterfuge, before it gets out of hand and goes to court. Nevertheless, let that pass for now, I have backed down graciously although with rather a primary school finger telling me off.

You'll be pleased, or at least not surprised, that in the meantime I have redecorated my study and installed a new second-hand computer with a new second-hand hifi and a new second-hand cat. (Nah, actually it is the same cat, nobody would give me a trade-in). The cat quite likes cheddar and fortunately Hungarian Lidl has some nice strong English cheddar, he likes it much more than the local cheese (although he likes that too). I have been doing lots of painting and decorating and doing up the house while my wife has been working abroad, got two and a half rooms done and new electrics and stuff, so have not been exactly idle, but she can break things about as quick as I can fix them. I have painted nice rather turneresque violent seascape mural 15 feet (4.6 m) by 12 feet (3.7 m) on my next door neighbour's walls that face my study, with his consent cos he can't see that wall but it needed re-stuccoing anyway (strange Hungarians put plaster on the outside of the walls, so I did that) but the sea I painted at the bottom gives me a bit of mal de mer, perhaps I should concrete it back in again and have hovercraft and a hoverport instead of the tall ships and stuff. Still as eccentric, and still I hope that eccentricity is as valuable to wikipedia as it always has been, like a good spider lurking in corners and grabbing all the little bits of flotsam that come by so they don't bug other people. (If you can use flotsam for bugs floating in the air rather than things floating on the sea, not sure).

I had a great re-entry doing a rather uncontroversial article at WP:PNT from Spanish to English, which turned out to be a one-woman revolutionary party, so was not quite as uncontroversial as I first thought.. hey ho, I will immerse myself into the intelligentsia at RfD for a while, if that is OK with you.

Hope all is well with you and yours in Canadaland. Si Trew (talk) 16:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Hey ho, Si! I'm genuinely glad that you've found your way back. While you've been out, the wife and I and our cats gave up on the big city and moved a little over a thousand miles away, closer to you I suppose, to a cute house in a beautiful city in Canada's smallest province, where she works in theatre and I work in looking for work. I've been doing a fair bit of house work myself, and growing a proper vegetable garden. On the other side of it I've been pretty inactive around here, and pretty well absent from RfD, partly due to being busy and partly due to a bad internet connection. Truth be told I'm tired of the Neelix drama and endeavouring to stay out of it as much as I possibly can, and at the same time trying to actually work on some content. My attention's been on sockpuppet investigations and on topics around my new location which I think deserve some coverage, like a draft I'm working on of an old French colonial road which I ended up on entirely by accident some time ago. Anyway I'm sure I'll run into you around here at some point, RfD is sure to draw me back in before terribly long. And the maple leaf emoji changed, so you'll be spared pages peppered with them at least for a time. All the best. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 21:26, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

27century

Sorry, I checked 27century for prior blocks, but didn't realise that there was an open SPI. I blocked User:FredericDe and User:Pablo Linz‎ as duck blocks. I see that FredericDe was the account in the SPI - I had been looking into Pablo Linz and saw the connection with 27century, and then wondered about the article completed in 27century's sandbox, so made the same connection that Blythwood (and subsequently you) made with FredericDe. Pablo Linz is a clear paid editor, but also has sufficient editing similarities to 27century to have triggered this in the first place.

I've been finding that indefinitely blocking paid editors who (generally) disclose on their main account just leads to them relying entirely on throw-away socks and not disclosing at all, so I was hoping to convince 27century to stick to the one account and meet the relevant policies instead. It may be overly optimistic, though. - Bilby (talk) 23:12, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

@Bilby: I agree, just blocking these paid editors outright seems counterproductive, then they just become a pain the ass to clean up after. 27century does seem like the sort of editor who could be convinced to abide by policies, after all they did disclose when they were asked to. On the other hand, making alternate accounts to hide their conflict of interest is an escalation in misbehaviour, and in my opinion a strong message is needed to correct that. I don't think anyone would be upset if you tried to coach the user while they are blocked (pinging Vanjagenije again just in case). Ivanvector (/_Edits) 00:22, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm very comfortable with the block - it is warranted, and I seriously considered it anyway. Longer but not indefinite blocks don't seem to work - I tired that with another paid editor, and they started using socks with only a week to go before it expired, so I think the current length is a good one. I'll try talking more and see how it goes. I had hoped that they would end up following policy, so it is worth a go. - Bilby (talk) 00:34, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Reg move of SPI

You moved the filing here, but the original move of the SPI was because this account was unrelated to the farm. Here, I'm specifically asking about this account as the other one (and the associated farm) has no bearing on this case as they are definitely not related. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 01:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi there SpacemanSpiff, thanks for pointing out my error. I'd like to correct this but I'm not quite sure what's going on. Are you saying that you want to investigate Itsbalaa and Lakshmikandh as socks of Editor 2050, and this has nothing to do with Abhinand1234? Ivanvector (/_Edits) 01:45, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Yup, that's it. This all came about because of an article I had to delete and salt, it's been a problem for over six months now, all courtesy of these three and a few other (now stale) accounts. The Abhinand one is more interested in Malayalam actresses than Tamil ones. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 01:51, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I think I've corrected it. The notice about the moved case is a template and I don't think I can change it, but I'll see what I can do. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 02:08, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

this is becoming too much

moved to User talk:Filipz123 Ivanvector (/_Edits) 00:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Gamergate draft

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Gamergate draft. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Alternate account

Hi. I can't see why your're asking for a block here. This is a legitimate alternate account, and there's no policy requiring me to make it public. Please see Misplaced Pages:Sock_puppetry#Legitimate_uses for policy. If I'm wrong about this, please just point me at the policy. -- Markshale (talk) 13:53, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the notification policy: "Except when doing so would defeat the purpose of having a legitimate alternative account". My motivation in doing this is to protect my privacy: laptops can be stolen. I have never misused this alternative account: I take great care to make sure I use it within policy. -- Markshale (talk) 13:57, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, disclosure is required. If you have a reason for wanting to keep your alternate accounts private, that's fine, but then you must contact (i.e. email) a user with CheckUser access (see Misplaced Pages:CheckUser#Users with CheckUser permissions) to make a disclosure. They will privately confirm, and will post something on-wiki to say they received your disclosure and confirmed that your use is legitimate, but your information will be kept private. Otherwise, you are violating the policy, and must be blocked. Since the user you are accused of being is a user banned by the Arbitration Committee, we have to treat your case very strictly. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 14:01, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

You shouldn't need that. A checkuser should be able to verify what my main account is: I've edited from the same address on my main account today. Flyer22's accusations are completely illegitimate, and I'm really quite offended by them. -- Markshale (talk) 14:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Disclosure of alternate accounts

I saw the conversations going on about alternate accounts and saw your comments that policy requires them to be disclosed. Can you point to the policy that says that because I can not find it? WP:ILLEGIT says: Editing project space: Undisclosed alternative accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project. WP:SCRUTINY also talks about undisclosed accounts. So if there is a different policy that says alternate accounts must be disclosed, we need to fix the policies so they don't contradict. -- GB fan 14:59, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

The two sections I referred to in the SPI are:

• WP:SOCK#LEGIT: "Alternative accounts should always be identified as such on their user pages, except where doing so would defeat the point of the account. Templates such as {{User alternative account}} or one of a selection of user boxes may be used for this purpose."
• WP:SOCK#NOTIFY: "Except when doing so would defeat the purpose of having a legitimate alternative account, editors using alternative accounts should provide links between the accounts." and "Editors who have multiple accounts for privacy reasons should consider notifying a checkuser or members of the arbitration committee if they believe editing will attract scrutiny. Editors who heavily edit controversial material are among the groups of editors who attract scrutiny even if their editing behavior itself is not problematic or only marginally so."

I'll note the policy says "should" and not "must". Since the case in question involves long-term abuse by a user banned by ArbCom and globally blocked, and the user accused is editing in a controversial topic area, I believe that their use of alternative account(s) should be reviewed. I don't need to know what their alternative accounts are and I'm not entitled to know anyway if they want to keep them private, but someone with CheckUser access (i.e. someone approved by WMF to keep private information confidential) should confirm that they are using their alternative accounts in a legitimate manner. That's my interpretation. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 16:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I understand the sockpuppet investigation concern in that specific case and that is why I didn't tie this into the case. I just saw a what appeared to be a contradiction and was looking at cleaning that contradiction up. I see now there really isn't a contradiction. -- GB fan 16:15, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Kim Kardashian RfC

You previously made a change at Kim Kardashian that was later reverted without consensus. The outcome of the RfC (to restore your edit) has not been enforced. I cannot make the edit because the article is semi-protected. My edit request has not been answered. Would you care to restore your edit? 2A00:23C0:A680:CE00:35CA:C6EE:E7C2:F74D (talk) 16:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks for bringing my attention to your request. In the future, you should use the {{edit semi-protected}} template (instructions at the link) to request this sort of change, that way your request will show up in the list of requests and will (hopefully) be responded to sooner. It looks to me like the edit was never made after the RfC closed, rather than it having been reverted. I've left a note below your request anyway. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 18:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for sorting it out! I now see the difference between a semi-protected edit request and just making a note on the talk page, thank you. :) 2A00:23C0:A680:CE00:609D:CE60:6088:B8D4 (talk) 19:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

ORCP

Hi Ivanvector, I’ve just been having another look at your entry at WP:ORCP. It may well be time for you to start a new poll and see what happens. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@Kudpung: hi there, and thanks for your note! I've been following discussions about our admin attrition problem, and ORCP itself, off-and-on for a while now. Back when I added myself to the list I had in my head that it was "just for fun", I have a lot of criticisms of the RFA culture and wasn't at all interested then in subjecting myself to it. I also couldn't think of any use that I would have for administrative tools at the time, gnoming my way through venues like WP:RFD as I was. I think that ORCP is weak on that point: editors running for RFA without any obvious use for the tools seem to get called hat-collectors and sink their own RFAs pretty often, and ORCP doesn't pick up on that. Anyway, since that time I have run into at least one situation (as an WP:SPI clerk) in which administrative tools could be of some use, so I've been thinking about it more. I have some work to do, and then maybe I'll list myself again. I'm still quite certain that I would get shot down on content alone, which I'm well aware is a weak area for me. Anyway, thanks for drawing my attention to it again. Cheers. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 21:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Misplaced Pages:Deferred changes/Request for comment 2016

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Misplaced Pages:Deferred changes/Request for comment 2016. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Re: LanguageXpert SPI

My comment was constructive criticism of the way accounts are being fished and reported under LX and none of them were confirmed as him. 19 accounts and none of them were him. Since you were involved editor, you should have open-heartedly accepted the criticism instead of reverting. Being a CheckUser Clerk or even a CheckUser does not give you immunity from constructive criticism. I do not think that my comment violated any policy and you overstepped when you removed it. It was directly related to that SPI and was added under the proper space available for other users to comment and it's not just you, there are others who have also made it a hobby of reporting any accounts they disagree with under LX. There are some who do nothing else except coming back after a while and report an LX sock. There is much more to do on Misplaced Pages than fishing and hunting socks of one master. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@SheriffIsInTown: Your comment was disruptive and Ivanvector was absolutely correct to revert it. Try to behave.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:31, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, SheriffIsInTown. I didn't want to say in a formal thread that your comment seemed like trolling, but your comment seemed like trolling, and was unwarranted in any case. Ultimately I removed your comment because it was simply wrong: several accounts were tagged as LanguageXpert socks as a result of these investigations. In the case in which you commented, an account with the name of a former sock plus the word "returns" is indeed worth checking, although it's ultimately of little consequence who the master is if the account is obviously a sockpuppet; this just happened to be the case open at the time (there are many overlapping cases in this area, as I'm sure you know). We do not endorse requests with no merit, and if you think we have, then your criticism is well-taken, but in this case you are wrong. And you should not accuse other editors of involvement unless you understand what that means; your accusation here shows that you do not. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 17:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

You are referring to TouristerMan and the returns version, they were never confirmed as LX and I do not think they are LX. If accounts were tagged as LX because they were possible or likely then I think they are tagged wrong, they should be in their own SPI. They are not LX. I do not know what possible or likely means when it comes to CU. Do they show up in the same city? Do they show up using same IP range? Same province? If they show up sharing an IP then they should be categorized as confirmed, sharing an A class IP range does not confirm anything. My comment was a good faith comment and had merit. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Bbb23: lol, come on,I give you pile of evidence and it is never good enough for you but here people open an SPI with one-liners and you do the check without asking for more evidence and that also knowingly that reported socks do not belong to the master they are being reported under. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)