User:The ed17/Archives/106
The Rambling Man arbitration proposed decision posted
[edit]A proposed decision has been posted in the open The Rambling Man arbitration page. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. If you are not a party, you may opt out of further notifications regarding this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Mass Message List. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Your opinion on declaring WP:INVOLVED
[edit]The ed17, what would be the best way to have an administrator declared as WP:INVOLVED when it comes to administrative actions concerning me? In the case I am speaking of, I have had a tempestuous history with the administrator for sometime and have made it clear more than once that I do not think that this administrator should act in an administrative capacity regarding me. Despite this, the administrator continues to do so. And, yes, I have examples of our tempestuous history. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:36, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I do. I love how you comment now, but ignore me for most of the day. WP:INVOLVED clearly states, "Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute." That fits us to a T. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- I've been "ignoring" you because anything that I am permitted to tell you at this point would only inflame matters. If I thought I could say something that would help you calm down, I would. INVOLVED has to do with content, not with my actions as an administrator. I should also say that although you're angry with me at the moment, there have been other times when you were quite pleased with my decisions. Don't ask me for diffs; I don't keep a catalog of such events, good or bad. I'm a functionary. I have certain very clear responsibilities. One is not to breach the privacy policy, and of course I won't do that to satisfy your or anyone else's needs. You should learn to trust me more. You don't have to like me or agree with me, but at least trust me. I actually trust you. I think you're bright, often incisive, and honest. You do get a little carried away at times, but that's part of your temperament and isn't going to change. Even that has its appealing aspects. Right at the moment it's a bit annoying. :-) Take care.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I do. I love how you comment now, but ignore me for most of the day. WP:INVOLVED clearly states, "Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute." That fits us to a T. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- Bbb23, it would have been helpful for you to identify the drive-by socks (even in the block log), but you did not. How are you not permitted to reveal who was operating those accounts? Those accounts are not IPs. Checkusers have openly revealed such information to me before. Identifying drive-by socks on a matter such as this is important, especially considering that Tisane does drive-by socking to my talk page. This case was important for a number of reasons, including as far as perception by outsiders go. You stated that "INVOLVED has to do with content, not with my actions as an administrator." That is not necessarily true. As this case shows, a number of editors felt that administrator was WP:INVOLVED because of the way he had interacted with me in the past. None of those interactions were a matter of him disagreeing with me over article content. The way that an administrator acts with an editor matters. I've been clear that some of my interactions with you leave much to be desired, so much so that I am not comfortable with you making administrative decisions regarding me. You even questioned whether or not you are involved. I am not angry with you; I am annoyed that you did not seem to give my concerns about that editor being a sock much credence and that you took the matter into your own hands and closed the case. Your close gives the impression that I am wrong, but there is a chance that I am not wrong. You didn't even sound entirely convinced that the editor is who he says he is. I feel that you should trust me more; you feel that I should trust you more. We are at an impasse. I will try to be more open-minded about you in the future, but it is not easy. I can control my temperament fairly well, actually, but I choose not to for a number of cases; this was especially true for the past three years where I needed to be stern and cold with problematic editors. I would clearly think: "Should I come across as a hothead? Or should I be very polite?" You know what I chose in some of those cases. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:23, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- All that stated, thank you for the above reply, Bbb23. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- Poor Ed, look what we're doing to his Talk page. He's probably happy he doesn't have to say anything. :-) Some things I'm not permitted to tell you; other things I'm uncomfortable telling anyone. The drive-by. If that account had been brought to SPI along with evidence, I would have made a public finding, but it didn't. What I found was ambivalent. I was satisfied the account should be blocked, but I couldn't conclusively name the master, which in this instance is why I didn't tag the account (other times I don't tag for other reasons - other CUs often do the same thing, btw). My belief is the drive-by was possibly Tisane, but there were anomalies in the technical data. Hope that helps a bit. I also blocked the one that posted to your Talk page. There's a better possibility that the second editor (potato chips or whatever the hell the username was) is related to the first. Take that for what it's worth. As for the crux of the matter, I am convinced that they are who they say they are. Sorry if I gave a different impression. Anyway, I'm glad that we're having this conversation. It's probably my fault for hoping it would go away.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:27, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- All that stated, thank you for the above reply, Bbb23. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, the socks were likely Tisane, but this sock signed his post the way that Tisane usually does, and this sock signed his post like Markshale signs posts (with the two dashes in the front), which could be argued as a deflection on Tisane's part. For example, if Markshale is not Tisane (which I'm not convinced is the case), the two dashes with that post could have been Tisane's way of trying to make it appear that he is Markshale and that he has prevailed. The entire post was a victory dance; so is this latest link that Tisane posted to boywiki. Yes, that editor is Tisane. The boychat response is very much similar to what he emailed me before, except this time the text is explicit about a pro-child sexual abuse stance. Someone suggested that I contact Fluffernutter and/or GorillaWarfare about the boywiki content because they might be able to do something about it per WP:Oversight and/or track its editors in a way that will link them here. But boywiki is not part of Wikipedia, and I've gotten used to my "notoriety" among child sexual abusers and pedophiles, who watched this latest sockpuppet case of mine like they were watching an illegal download. I've gotten used to their disturbing posts and the way they try to undermine me here at Wikipedia. So they can mock me without me batting an eye. I did not even know about the "Super secret special admirer" matter seen at boywiki until a few days ago. I check in on the site occasionally, but have done so more recently the past few days since I knew that the latest posts there were connected to this sock case.
- The main issue for me with your close is that I think you rely too heavily on CU data, which I suppose is to be expected since you are a CheckUser. Over the years, I conversed with CheckUsers who made it clear that the tool is not pixie dust and can be circumvented in a number of ways. Furthermore, CheckUsers do not always come to the same conclusion, as I demonstrated on your talk page (with the initial link above). If we look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jdogno5/Archive, what I now cite as a cautionary tale about over-reliance on the CheckUser data, we see that one CheckUser stated "Possible" and the other stated "Unrelated technically." They were wrong not to block the account. Had I not taken matters into my own hands and listed behavioral evidence, the editor who started that sockpuppet case (Betty Logan) would still be considered incorrect, despite the fact that common sense should tell a person viewing the initial case that she was right all along. Yes, I don't understand how the CheckUser tool works, but I don't think that I need to. Your close has not only given the impression that Markshale is innocent, but that the Tisane editing pattern I noted cannot be relied upon, or at least not consistently relied upon, despite the fact that it has worked without fail to identify Tisane in the past. It still remains that those edit summaries are not automated and that it's unlikely that someone other than Tisane would consistently edit like that. I cannot get past the behavioral evidence; you cannot get past the CU data and wanted me to simply stop discussing the matter because you believe you are right. So, yeah, we're at an impasse. I wish that you and/or Ivanvector would bring in second and third CheckUser opinions on this matter, for all the reasons I've stated. I pinged others in the SPI, but there were no takers. Maybe Fluffernutter and GorillaWarfare would be open to looking this case over? Maybe you wouldn't mind sharing what you know with them? You seem to mean well, but I can't get over the unease I feel about this case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- Commenting, since I've been pinged. Child protection concerns should follow the advice at Wikipedia:Child protection. If what you're looking for here is some input on a checkuser case, I'm probably not the one to ask—though I hold the checkuser right, it's by dint of being an arbitrator and not because I possess any notable skill in identifying socks. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- The main issue for me with your close is that I think you rely too heavily on CU data, which I suppose is to be expected since you are a CheckUser. Over the years, I conversed with CheckUsers who made it clear that the tool is not pixie dust and can be circumvented in a number of ways. Furthermore, CheckUsers do not always come to the same conclusion, as I demonstrated on your talk page (with the initial link above). If we look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jdogno5/Archive, what I now cite as a cautionary tale about over-reliance on the CheckUser data, we see that one CheckUser stated "Possible" and the other stated "Unrelated technically." They were wrong not to block the account. Had I not taken matters into my own hands and listed behavioral evidence, the editor who started that sockpuppet case (Betty Logan) would still be considered incorrect, despite the fact that common sense should tell a person viewing the initial case that she was right all along. Yes, I don't understand how the CheckUser tool works, but I don't think that I need to. Your close has not only given the impression that Markshale is innocent, but that the Tisane editing pattern I noted cannot be relied upon, or at least not consistently relied upon, despite the fact that it has worked without fail to identify Tisane in the past. It still remains that those edit summaries are not automated and that it's unlikely that someone other than Tisane would consistently edit like that. I cannot get past the behavioral evidence; you cannot get past the CU data and wanted me to simply stop discussing the matter because you believe you are right. So, yeah, we're at an impasse. I wish that you and/or Ivanvector would bring in second and third CheckUser opinions on this matter, for all the reasons I've stated. I pinged others in the SPI, but there were no takers. Maybe Fluffernutter and GorillaWarfare would be open to looking this case over? Maybe you wouldn't mind sharing what you know with them? You seem to mean well, but I can't get over the unease I feel about this case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for commenting, GorillaWarfare. I'm aware of the WP:Child protection policy, but I don't see any child protection action to take in this case. It doesn't seem like Wikipedia or the WP:WMF could do anything about the other wiki. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- If there are any child protection concerns, I would send them to the WMF so that they can be the ones to decide if there is action to take. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:04, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- So. Alright, then. First, on where we started here. Bbb, usually if you have to ask if you're involved, you're involved. ;-) But really, I see the points you're raising in that post and don't want to take a side. I would leave it to others to take action regarding Flyer (if any needs to be taken); it'll be less drama for everyone.
- Second, I can't really comment on everything else, not being a functionary or familiar with the case. I do agree with GW that it's better to pass on everything to the WMF so they have all of the evidence when deciding whether to take action. (obligatory disclaimer: while I work with the WMF, this comment is made only in a volunteer capacity, and I have no role—formal or otherwise—with the Support and Safety team). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:45, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- Ed, that comment on Drmies's Talk page, a forum where all sorts of things are said with varying degrees of seriousness, was more me musing about INVOLVED qua policy than my questioning whether I was involved. Flyer22 can cling to the idea that I can't act at SPI when she is a "party" but it won't fly (da-da-da-boom).--Bbb23 (talk) 16:11, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Bbb23: I don't see why (absent a good reason) you'd continue to act in an administrator capacity with a long-standing editor who has explicitly requested you not to? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- Do you know how many times users tell me I can't be impartial because of my past administrative actions against them? As for Flyer22, I barely have anything to do with her except at SPI. There are other users, not just Flyer22, who think I can't act at SPI because I've disagreed with them on past cases. SPI has a limited team and an even more limited number of CUs who patrol SPI. Any user, Flyer22 included, can approach another CU and ask if they'll intervene. I believe she did so in this instance (Alison). For the most part, CUs won't do that. Usually, another CU gets involved only if a CU asks for a second opinion. Anyway, I'm tired of talking about this. It's one thing to defend myself in something questionable, but this isn't one of those kinds of cases. You can feel free to disagree with me; that's your prerogative, but circular discussions, which are all too common at Wikipedia, are not the way I want to spend the too much time I already spend here. End of pout.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Bbb23: I don't see why (absent a good reason) you'd continue to act in an administrator capacity with a long-standing editor who has explicitly requested you not to? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- Ed, that comment on Drmies's Talk page, a forum where all sorts of things are said with varying degrees of seriousness, was more me musing about INVOLVED qua policy than my questioning whether I was involved. Flyer22 can cling to the idea that I can't act at SPI when she is a "party" but it won't fly (da-da-da-boom).--Bbb23 (talk) 16:11, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- "Thanks, Ed. It's clear Bbb23 believes that the notion that he can't act at SPI when I am a 'party' is something that 'won't fly,' while I believe that he is underestimating not only the evidence I have indicating that he, in fact, probably should not be acting in an administrative capacity regarding me, but also my ability to make a strong case against someone. After all, if he had not swooped in and saved Markshale, Markshale would be indefinitely blocked right now. The behavioral evidence was obviously strong, which is why he warned other administrators not to block Markshale regardless of how compelling they found the evidence. That said, after looking at Markshale's master account (no, Bbb23 didn't reveal it to me; nor did any other CheckUser), I believe that Bbb23 acted correctly in this case. I had neglected that there is one editor who edits like Tisane (the patterns, not just one or two patterns), despite the fact that I've interacted with this editor a number of times over the years. I didn't interact with him enough to memorize his editing style, obviously. I'm not sure why Markshale made it seem like we've interacted occasionally or that he might have interacted with me. There is no 'might have.' I will apologize on his user talk page. I will not reveal his main account, but it was easy to locate once looking for the Tisane pattern.
- I will always feel that Bbb23 relies too heavily on the CheckUser tool. He does not give enough weight to behavioral evidence, which is clear by his initial response in the aforementioned case, when I noted that I wanted the case looked into further. He was ready for the case to close from the beginning, despite the fact that an 'unrelated' result does not necessarily equate to 'innocent'...as I've already shown above with a prime example of CheckUsers disregarding sound behavioral evidence in favor of CheckUser data (which got the matter wrong). The CheckUser tool is obviously flawed. 'Another CU get[ting] involved only if a CU asks for a second opinion'" is a crap way to go, given the examples I pointed to.
- Let's face it: Some CUs simply don't like what they consider to be sockhunters or rogue sockcatchers. They want the sockcases to go through official 'trials,' and view those who don't always use the official process as disruptive and/or believe that they see themselves as being on an administrative level. To them, we are like bountyhunters working outside the law, and we must be reigned in, taught a lesson, despite the fact that we've repeatedly uncovered the worst of socks and some pretty vile socks at that. Sorry, but the only lesson I've learned from my years of catching socks is that behavioral evidence is usually everything and 'coincidences' are to be taken with a grain of salt. In most cases (and I've noted this before on my user page), I didn't really look for socks; it's usually rather that they stupidly continued to circle my orbit, daring me, as if I wouldn't recognize them. In some cases, I ignore them. I am ignoring Cali11298 these days, for example. And, for the most part, I ignore Cebr1979, who couldn't hide his writing style if his life depended on it, including his tendency to sign his username right up against his posts (meaning with no space in between). But it doesn't mean that I don't know who they are. I never thought that this IP was Markshale. I know who that IP is, and I was clear about that. I have a few persistent stalkers and I recognize them fairly easily, especially the ones with less-than-typical signature styles.
- In any case, I am currently not focused on these type of things. Thanks for hearing me out." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:06, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXXVI, October 2016
[edit]
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:19, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: September 2016
[edit]
| ||||||
About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 15:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Editing News #3—2016
[edit]Read this in another language • Subscription list for this multilingual newsletter • Subscribe or unsubscribe on the English Wikipedia
Did you know that you can easily re-arrange columns and rows in the visual editor?
Select a cell in the column or row that you want to move. Click the arrow at the start of that row or column to open the dropdown menu (shown). Choose either "Move before" or "Move after" to move the column, or "Move above" or "Move below" to move the row.
You can read and help translate the user guide, which has more information about how to use the visual editor.
Since the last newsletter, the VisualEditor Team has mainly worked on a new wikitext editor. They have also released some small features and the new map editing tool. Their workboard is available in Phabricator. You can find links to the list of work finished each week at mw:VisualEditor/Weekly triage meetings. Their current priorities are fixing bugs, releasing the 2017 wikitext editor as a beta feature, and improving language support.
Recent changes
[edit]- You can now set text as small or big.[1]
- Invisible templates have been shown as a puzzle icon. Now, the name of the invisible template is displayed next to the puzzle icon.[2] A similar feature will display the first part of hidden HTML comments.[3]
- Categories are displayed at the bottom of each page. If you click on the categories, the dialog for editing categories will open.[4]
- At many wikis, you can now add maps to pages. Go to the Insert menu and choose the "Maps" item. The Discovery department are adding more features to this area, like geoshapes. You can read more on MediaWiki.org.[5]
- The "Save" button now says "Save page" when you create a page, and "Save changes" when you change an existing page.[6] In the future, the "Save page" button will say "Publish page". This will affect both the visual and wikitext editing systems. More information is available on Meta.
- Image galleries now use a visual mode for editing. You can see thumbnails of the images, add new files, remove unwanted images, rearrange the images by dragging and dropping, and add captions for each image. Use the "Options" tab to set the gallery's display mode, image sizes, and add a title for the gallery.[7]
Future changes
[edit]The visual editor will be offered to all editors at the remaining 10 "Phase 6" Wikipedias during the next month. The developers want to know whether typing in your language feels natural in the visual editor. Please post your comments and the language(s) that you tested at the feedback thread on mediawiki.org. This will affect several languages, including Thai, Burmese and Aramaic.
The team is working on a modern wikitext editor. The 2017 wikitext editor will look like the visual editor and be able to use the citoid service and other modern tools. This new editing system may become available as a Beta Feature on desktop devices in October 2016. You can read about this project in a general status update on the Wikimedia mailing list.
Let's work together
[edit]Do you teach new editors how to use the visual editor? Did you help set up the Citoid automatic reference feature for your wiki? Have you written or imported TemplateData for your most important citation templates? Would you be willing to help new editors and small communities with the visual editor? Please sign up for the new VisualEditor Community Taskforce.
If you aren't reading this in your preferred language, then please help us with translations! Subscribe to the Translators mailing list or contact us directly, so that we can notify you when the next issue is ready. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:18, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
The Signpost: 14 October 2016
[edit]- News and notes: Fundraising, flora and fauna
- Discussion report: Cultivating leadership: Wikimedia Foundation seeks input
- Technology report: Upcoming tech projects for 2017
- Featured content: Variety is the spice of life
- Traffic report: Debates and escapes
- Recent research: A 2011 study resurfaces in a media report
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
RFC/N discussion of the username "Emir of Wikipedia"
[edit]
A request for comment has been filed concerning the username of Emir of Wikipedia (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion here. —Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Pennsylvania-class battleship for TFA on December 7
[edit]I added Pennsylvania-class battleship to Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests for December 7, the 75th anniversary of the Attack on Pearl Harbor. Halgin (talk) 21:09, 22 October 2016 (UTC)