User talk:Horse Eye's Back/Archives/2024/October

IP addresses and how they are used in Courts to identify individuals

Give a read. I have no idea on why you cannot see that disclosing IP details to a Court of Law == disclosing the person behind the computer. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:37, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam: I don't understand what you've written here, can you clarify? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Assuming, your reply is in good faith —

(1) Wikimedia stores IP addresses of its users for 90 days since last login/edit/??. This is the data that is relied upon by Checkusers to detect socks; also, this 90 day limit means asking for check-using old socks is often useless because there is no data!

(2) Now, let's say that you have made what-I-feel-to-be-defamatory edits about me in some Wikipedia article on 6 PM (UTC), 1 April, 2020 and want to sue you. Assume, also, that you live in a country where laws around privacy are very weak.

(3) I (somehow) guess the country you are in and file a suit in that country against you. But, for certain, I cannot sue Horse Eye's Back — that's ridiculous. I need to know your real identity, somehow.

(4) I ask Wikimedia to provide whatever details they have about you. They comply and expectedly have nothing to offer except IP address and User-Agent.

(5) Now, I cannot sue an alphanumeric IP address anymore than a virtual user-name! But I see that the IP address belongs to an ISP (a zillion internet websites allow finding the ISP from an IP address; even the checkuser tool, probably) that is based in the country where I have filed the suit — that is, my initial guess about your location was correct.

(6) I request the Court to order the ISP to go through its logs and disclose the name (and other details) of the subscriber who was assigned that IP Address on 6 PM (UTC), 1 April, 2020.

(7) The ISP replies that the said subscriber was one Mr. Donald Duck, living in XYZ Pool, ...

(8) I can now send notice to Mr. Donald Duck and go after him. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I get all that... The question is how does the WMF know who Horse Eye's Back is, they said name not IP address (and the name you would get from tracing back my IP as far as Mr. Donald Duck is not mine). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:58, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

You very well understand that the "name of the authors" was an imprecise substitute for "identifying details" that were sought at the first place. I will appreciate if you do not seek to derail discussions in future by asking patently bad-faith queries. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

(EC) I had not understood it to be a euphemism, and I'm not convinced it is. How in the world are you understanding anything I've said as bad faith? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:09, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

A bit of advice

I have been here since 2008, and it looks like you have been here since 2018. I mean this in the nicest of ways, but don't go around telling people who have been on Wikipedia a lot longer than you have and have a clean block log (other than my account being compromised, admittedly due to my own carelessness over a decade ago) about getting blocked. Even the vandal warning templates don't mention the blocking policy at all on level 1 and don't use the word "block" until level 3. I am one of the nicer ones on here (although I did not used to be), but there's a lot of people who would really get pissed off over that. I've seen it many times, a lot of the time it ends at WP:AN/I, and a lot of the time somebody doesn't leave with a happy ending (often the person who started it), even if it's nothing more than a WP:TROUT. I suggest kindly and gently discussing matters you think are policy violations with experienced users, and then let an administrator threaten them with blocks if it needs to be done, because they have the teeth to actually do it (you can escalate things to WP:AN/I, or in this case WP:COIN if direct, non-threatening, non-condescending discussion isn't working). I submitted to change the username, thank you for that nudge. Blessings. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 17:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

It was a direct quote from the relevant section of our naming policy (WP:ORGNAME) "A user who both adopts a promotional username and who engages in inappropriate advertising or promotional edits or behaviors – especially when made to their own user space or to articles about the company, group, or product – can be blocked from editing Wikipedia, and are often blocked much sooner than users who engage in only one of the two behaviors." I didn't mean any offense by it and I did not use it myself outside of the quote. I was warning you of potential danger, not threatening you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

October 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Starlink. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Ergzay (talk) 00:44, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ergzay: lol, check the talk page Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:45, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ergzay: you can't post an edit warring warning... And then continue to edit war[1], how does that make any sense? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:49, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: As part of your edit warring on Starlink, you are also engaged in WP:UNCIVIL behaviour, summarizing your edit with "You obviously misunderstand what you've removed, it does not say what you think it does", i.e. making a claim about what another editor is thinking. I think this is not a helpful approach. Lklundin (talk) 03:53, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

@Lklundin: the claim was accurate, the editor did misunderstand what they removed... It did not say what they thought it did. How is pointing that out unhelpful? IMO its AGF, do you want me to assume mallice instead of misunderstanding? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:37, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

There's another uncivil edit summary on Evo Morales here. Level 2 warning. Kire1975 (talk) 20:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

"I don't think that establishes what you think it does" is uncivil? And note that I was right, it did not establish what you thought it did. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Building America's Future has been accepted

Building America's Future, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Qcne (talk) 22:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)