Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bishonen (talk | contribs) at 21:27, 4 November 2016 (Protected "User talk:Ivanvector": Persistent vandalism ( (expires 21:27, 18 November 2016 (UTC)))). 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.

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)

Trust that when a case is filed under the wrong master, we do our best to check against other sockmasters that we know are active in the area as well, as some of the tags in these recent cases show, and don't make connections that we can't back up with evidence. I can't comment on the CU data and I doubt anyone who has access will be able to give more information than has been given already. I don't know what else we can tell you. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 19:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Maya515

I'm not sure what you did wrong when you moved the Megaman1988 case to this one, but the archive didn't come with it. I'm not sure my fix was best, but at least we now have the correct archive.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. Maybe something changed in the move interface, related to WP:PAGEMOVER? There was talk of changing the behaviour regarding moving subpages. Maybe I didn't click something I was supposed to. I think your fix is fine, anyway, and I'll have a better look next time I move a case. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 13:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Robb Well's birthday is Oct. 28, 1971 - Source IMDB

Robb Well's birthday is wrong on this page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Robb_Wells

Robb Well's birthday is Oct. 28, 1971 - Source IMDB

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1036211/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.19.229.254 (talk) 18:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, but you did not read what I posted on your IP's talk page. IMDb cannot be used as a source for biographies of living persons, because that site relies on user-submitted information and does not do any of its own research, so we do not consider it reliable. The Swearnet Tumblr is only marginally better because that at least is a primary self-published source, and it contradicts what is published at IMDb. I haven't been able to find a better source for Wells' birth date. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 20:35, 28 October 2016 (UTC)