Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ivanvector (talk | contribs) at 19:40, 29 December 2016 (*burrp*). 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.

Misplaced Pages: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 (/_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 Misplaced Pages. "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 (/_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 (/_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 Misplaced Pages: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 (/_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 (/_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 (/_Edits) 17:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Moving to the article's talk page. Ivanvector (/_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=|target=}} below the list of redirects and above my nomination statement. Ivanvector (/_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 (/_Edits) 15:43, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Closing MfDs

Just a quick note in regard to Misplaced Pages: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_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 (/_Edits) 16:04, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Your decline of a CU at ANI

Just a small piece of advice for the future. When you decline an inline request for a CU, please deactivate the template (I usually put "tlx" in front of it) rather than remove it so it remains visible and provides context. Your decline, btw, was very reasonable. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

That's good advice, thanks. I replaced the deactivated template in the thread. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 23:34, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I should have known

I see you're a fellow Canadian, which explains so very much! Perhaps we'll meet in Montreal in August at Wikimania. Good luck with the RFA. Risker (talk) 03:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Pizzagate (conspiracy theory)

What exactly makes the disambiguation "unnecessary"? It doesn't seem to match any of the three examples shown in {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}, which respectively are wholly-unnecessary parenthetical disambiguations, unnecessary natural disambiguations, and overspecified parenthetical disambiguations.

The "wholly-unnecessary parenthetical disambiguation" case would apply if the target article were simply "Pizzagate," but it isn't. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 02:41, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@SoledadKabocha: it seems you're right, I'll revert myself unless you've already done it. It would be unnecessary disambiguation if the page at Pizzagate were a redirect to Pizzagate conspiracy theory, which it should, but since that hasn't happened yet you're right. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 13:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Successful RfA

• Congratulations for adminship !! CAPTAIN RAJU 00:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

• Congratulations on your well-deserved, and very-nearly unanimous candidature, Meters (talk) 00:10, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
• Congratulations from me too! Enjoy your T-shirt . —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
• My condolences congratulations. By no small feat, you had the most supported and the 4th most participated RFA in 2016. Mkdw 00:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
• Congratulations, good luck and best wishes. Donner60 (talk) 04:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
• Congrats! I was most excited when I saw your RfA, and even more so knowing you're on the team now. Be sure to give WP:ADMINTOOLS a look-see, it's good to know how to do things the hard way but don't wear yourself out :) My door is always open if you need anything. Looking forward to working with you! — MusikAnimal 05:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
• Congrats! I was trilled to see your nom and work along side you in the past. Enjoy your mop... Tiggerjay (talk) 06:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
• Congratulations! :) Sam Walton (talk) 12:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
• Congrats and good luck! -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:24, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
• About time – what took you so long? Very good news, well done! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:18, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you everyone who supported my RfA! And thank you also to everyone who asked questions and provided constructive criticism, your input is very much appreciated and I have a lot to consider going forward. I promise you all I will try very hard not to delete the main page. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 02:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

It's okay, you can't actually delete the main page now. I've tried. ;-) ~Oshwah~ 11:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

As I recall, the last time the main page was deleted it was because someone said it couldn't be done. ;) Ivanvector (/_Edits) 12:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Steamboat Bill

Thanks for the help! See ; I didn't remember much about the mechanics of closing one of these. Nyttend (talk) 20:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

SPI question

Hi there. Yesterday I submitted a Sockpuppet investigation. I've been periodically checking up on it but noticed mine just sits there while others come and go. Is there something incorrect about my report? Surely I would have heard about it if it was? I am just curious is all. thanks! --Jennica✿ / 18:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jennica: no, it looks like you did everything right, it just sometimes takes us a little while to get around to the newest cases. There's just about 100 open cases right now that go back about three weeks, and we're doing our best but which cases get processed first all depends on who's looking at the list, really. Sometimes we do the oldest because they're the oldest, other times we do the newest because they might be the most urgent, everyone has different approaches. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 19:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)