User talk:Tom29739/Archive 13
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Tom29739. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 20 |
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:49, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXXIII, July 2016
|
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) 12:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
- A new image scaler fixed a number of bugs for showing SVG files. Some new problems turned up. [1][2][3]
- Notifications are grouped by types. They are now counted by number of notifications and not by unread groups. That change may increase the number of notifications displayed. The earlier way of counting was often incorrect. Unread notifications will also be displayed first. [4][5][6]
- Special:Notifications now has a maximum width for the notifications list on desktop computers. This allows long titles and descriptions to be cut properly. Notifications are now also better parsed. [7][8][9]
Problems
- On 5 July Wikimedia Commons had problems and could not be edited for 20 minutes. For a short while after that the recent changes log and some gadgets were not working properly. It affected administrative actions on other projects too. [10]
- Users who have multiple unread notifications can mark them as read by visiting Special:Notifications page on their wiki.
Changes this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 12 July. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 13 July. It will be on all wikis from 14 July (calendar).
Meetings
- You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 12 July at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.
Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
15:15, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:52, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
- Due to the rollback, new sorting of Notifications on the Fly-Out Menus has been deployed with a delay. [11]
Due to the rollback, the daily special patch deployment process has been changed. [12]- In notifications, "Messages" are now called "Notices". [13]
Problems
- On July 12 all wikis were rolled back to MediaWiki 1.28.0-wmf.8 due to a problem in the log-in system. [14][15]
Changes this week
- The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 19 July. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 20 July. It will be on all wikis from 21 July (calendar).
- Special:Log now has a help link. [16]
- The RevisionSlider can be tested on the beta cluster. From 22 July, it will be available as a beta feature at: German Wikipedia, Arabic Wikipedia, Hebrew Wikipedia
Meetings
- You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 19 July at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.
- You can join the next meeting with the Architecture committee. The topic this week is "Devise plan for a cross-wiki watchlist back-end". The meeting will be on 20 July at 21:00 (UTC). See how to join. [17]
Future changes
- User scripts and bots can no longer use http:// to edit wiki pages. [18][19]
- Gerrit is going to be updated. Developers are invited to test it. [20]
Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
12:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
The Signpost: 21 July 2016
- Discussion report: Busy month for discussions
- Featured content: A wide variety from the best
- Traffic report: Sports and esports
- Arbitration report: Script writers appointed for clerks
- Recent research: Using deep learning to predict article quality
Block Notice
 |
CheckUser evidence has determined that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked temporarily to prevent abuse. Administrators: CheckUsers are privy to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy, and therefore must be consulted before this block can be removed. Administrators undoing checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser risk having their administrator rights removed by the Arbitration Committee (per this announcement). Mike V • Talk 21:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC) |
- @Mike V: Why am I blocked? I don't believe I have used this account or any account abusively, nor is my IP blocked. Tom29739 [talk] 00:32, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Checkuser evidence shows that you engaged in sockpuppetry, editing while logged out to mislead, and block evasion. Mike V • Talk 02:50, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Mike V: I've known Tom29739 for a couple of months, and I don't believe he'd do this. Perhaps this is an error? Also, was there a SPI investigation or was this random? Dat GuyTalkContribs 10:56, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- I can't find an SPI that mentions Tom29739, and Mike V did not edit any SPI pages within around an hour of the blocking. This makes me wonder what caused the suspicion required to run a CU. KSFTC 13:36, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- I've got to say, I'm a little startled by this behaviour too - Mike V, I trust your judgement in the matter, but is there anything more you can say to possibly alleviate these mild concerns? This is quite out of character for Tom -- samtar talk or stalk 11:09, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Mike V: I've known Tom29739 for a couple of months, and I don't believe he'd do this. Perhaps this is an error? Also, was there a SPI investigation or was this random? Dat GuyTalkContribs 10:56, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Checkuser evidence shows that you engaged in sockpuppetry, editing while logged out to mislead, and block evasion. Mike V • Talk 02:50, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- I am also curious as to why this block came out of the blue. If it's based on CU evidence, it may be possible that the ISP the intended suspect was using swapped IPs with Tom, hence I suspect this is mere collateral damage. I've known Tom for a while now and he is aware of the sockpuppet policies for sure, and he wouldn't do this. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 12:33, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- The check was performed to investigate abusive behavior. Unfortunately, I cannot provide much information as it would violate the privacy policy. However, I can say that these accounts were a confirmed match to Tom29739: PeterRobertson7, Callumlol99, Banyer. Mike V • Talk 15:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Mike V:, I echo the concerns and curiosity here. Sockpuppetry would be out of character for tom29739. I think there's a potential of an mistaken block here. I realize that you can't share the CU evidence for privacy reasons, but could you review the evidence more thoroughly perhaps? The writing and editing styles of the listed apparent socks does not appear to *at all* match tom29739. And thank you for listing the socks that CU evidence appears to match tom29739 to. Waggie (talk) 16:05, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'm very certain about the connection. There is a unique element of the technical data that connects Tom29739 to the accounts and other concerning edits. Mike V • Talk 16:30, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Mike V: thank you for providing this information -- samtar talk or stalk 17:00, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Mike V:, yes thank you, I do appreciate you responding with more information. I'm still not convinced, personally, but it's all well above my access level. Waggie (talk) 17:06, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Well Tom is below 18, very likely he edited from his school once or twice which would show up in the CU log for the last 6 months, there is a good chance some kids from the same school also edited on the same IP range or even IP but that does not mean he was socking, one of 3 things @Mike V: Is the IP used by all 4 accounts you mentioned (Banyer never edited) from a school or some place with a public wi-fi? or the "unique element" you speak of is surely the browser user agent, isn't it possible that if the above is true then its very likely they all may have used the same computer or set of computers using the same browser in their school library or computer lab? and I was notified by Tom that he was born in this millennium, one of the accounts you blocked which had done 'vandalism' is apparently for someone born in 99 (kids love using birth years in usernames [and passwords] so I'm very sure that these socks were not him but belonging to kids in his school, some maybe even his juniors..and he never attended one of the school whose page was vandalised by one of his "socks"..You and I both know kids always target schools they go/went too on wikipedia..so again, if you answered yes to my first question,then there is a very very strong possibility that this was "collateral"..I see no similarity with the 'Callumlol99' account at all and the only similarity with the 'PeterRobertson7' account is that they both edited the page of a current cabinet member recently (Tom edited Theresa May, Peter edited Andrea Leadsom's page)...and the 'PeterRobertson7' accounts is also a collateral since it looks like it was a 'genuine' contributor fixing that article and reading the users tone, i'm convinced he is an adult, and not someone in high school (perhaps a teacher).--Stemoc 00:51, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not going to comment on the technical data, nor will I speculate on this user's personal information. Mike V • Talk 02:46, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- Its neither speculation nor releasing 'personal data' and by saying you refuse to tell us what you find makes us wonder that maybe you were wrong, this is a common practice on enwiki sadly whereby CU's and most times admins who blatantly block accounts as socks without verifiable or justifiable proof leading to socking..You just had to answer yes or no to my first question, you need not to give out the IP, I did not ask for it....personally, its CU abuse since you randomly CU'ed his account even though he had not edited for 3 days prior to that..I expected better from you Mike especially since you know you are the ONLY admin i ever voted to support for CU rights and arbcom :( ..I'm not an admin or CU but over the years i have also been able to read people via their edits and behavior and have caught many socks and vandals this way across media and in no way do i see Tom being a sock of 'Callumlol99' or 'PeterRobertson7'...either our arbcoms/CU's have developed super powers over the last few years (telepathy) or they have become arrogant and lazy...there can be only one answer..--Stemoc 03:09, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not going to comment on the technical data, nor will I speculate on this user's personal information. Mike V • Talk 02:46, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- Well Tom is below 18, very likely he edited from his school once or twice which would show up in the CU log for the last 6 months, there is a good chance some kids from the same school also edited on the same IP range or even IP but that does not mean he was socking, one of 3 things @Mike V: Is the IP used by all 4 accounts you mentioned (Banyer never edited) from a school or some place with a public wi-fi? or the "unique element" you speak of is surely the browser user agent, isn't it possible that if the above is true then its very likely they all may have used the same computer or set of computers using the same browser in their school library or computer lab? and I was notified by Tom that he was born in this millennium, one of the accounts you blocked which had done 'vandalism' is apparently for someone born in 99 (kids love using birth years in usernames [and passwords] so I'm very sure that these socks were not him but belonging to kids in his school, some maybe even his juniors..and he never attended one of the school whose page was vandalised by one of his "socks"..You and I both know kids always target schools they go/went too on wikipedia..so again, if you answered yes to my first question,then there is a very very strong possibility that this was "collateral"..I see no similarity with the 'Callumlol99' account at all and the only similarity with the 'PeterRobertson7' account is that they both edited the page of a current cabinet member recently (Tom edited Theresa May, Peter edited Andrea Leadsom's page)...and the 'PeterRobertson7' accounts is also a collateral since it looks like it was a 'genuine' contributor fixing that article and reading the users tone, i'm convinced he is an adult, and not someone in high school (perhaps a teacher).--Stemoc 00:51, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Mike V:, I echo the concerns and curiosity here. Sockpuppetry would be out of character for tom29739. I think there's a potential of an mistaken block here. I realize that you can't share the CU evidence for privacy reasons, but could you review the evidence more thoroughly perhaps? The writing and editing styles of the listed apparent socks does not appear to *at all* match tom29739. And thank you for listing the socks that CU evidence appears to match tom29739 to. Waggie (talk) 16:05, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- The check was performed to investigate abusive behavior. Unfortunately, I cannot provide much information as it would violate the privacy policy. However, I can say that these accounts were a confirmed match to Tom29739: PeterRobertson7, Callumlol99, Banyer. Mike V • Talk 15:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- I am also curious as to why this block came out of the blue. If it's based on CU evidence, it may be possible that the ISP the intended suspect was using swapped IPs with Tom, hence I suspect this is mere collateral damage. I've known Tom for a while now and he is aware of the sockpuppet policies for sure, and he wouldn't do this. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 12:33, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
@Stemoc:, while I strongly believe this is a mistaken block, I think we need to AGF here. While I disagreee with Mike V's actions, he honestly seems to believe he is doing what is best for Wikipedia, and believes he has legitimate evidence to support his actions. Please understand that Mike V is trying to avoid giving out any personal details that he is not allowed to per his role as CU. I know that I would appreciate if, in such a situation, he were careful regarding my personal information also. As I understand it, Tom29739 is appealing his block to ArbCom, so please let this play out per policy without any...unpleasantness. Let's let the process take place as it should. Thank you for understanding. Waggie (talk) 04:13, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- Hi everyone. I absolutely understand the curiosity and concern of fellow editors of Tom. I will ask you that you allow the appeals process to work, and that we avoid speculation as it's confusing to not only those reviewing it, but it also confuses those reading this page, and isn't helping. That said, I've chatted directly with Tom, and we are actively working in the appeals process. I would like to stress that Tom was not directly suspected of sockpuppetry when checkuser got involved. It was only after dealing with vandalizing edits with other users and/or IPs that his name came up. That is all I can disclose though publicly. I've also provided Tom with reasoning as to why his name came up, information that CUs are not allowed by any means to release publicly such as here on the talkpage. If Tom wishes to reveal his own data, then that is his prerogative.
- Right now, 3 CUs are involved and discussing the unblock request and we will keep Tom in the loop, and I hope for quick but accurate deliberations. If he further wishes, he can request appeals at the appropriate time to larger bodies, depending on the result of this one. Please bear with us through this. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:03, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- To keep everyone updated, I have sent additional evidence to the checkusers for review. It may take a day or two to look it over and finish our discussion, so I ask for a bit more patience while we continue our conversation. Mike V • Talk 01:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- @DeltaQuad and Mike V: Thank you both for your transparency and willingness to keep us publicly in the loop as much as permitted during this - would it be possible to request an update on the block? -- samtar talk or stalk 17:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Samtar: Tom29739 has appealed to arbcom, so I believe that takes it out of our hands. I forwarded the evidence to the committee 3 days ago and they acknowledged the receipt of the email shortly after. Unfortunately, DeltaQuad is experiencing some computer and connection issues and is not readily available for the time being. Mike V • Talk 21:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you again for the update Mike V -- samtar talk or stalk 18:04, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Samtar: Tom29739 has appealed to arbcom, so I believe that takes it out of our hands. I forwarded the evidence to the committee 3 days ago and they acknowledged the receipt of the email shortly after. Unfortunately, DeltaQuad is experiencing some computer and connection issues and is not readily available for the time being. Mike V • Talk 21:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- @DeltaQuad and Mike V: Thank you both for your transparency and willingness to keep us publicly in the loop as much as permitted during this - would it be possible to request an update on the block? -- samtar talk or stalk 17:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- To keep everyone updated, I have sent additional evidence to the checkusers for review. It may take a day or two to look it over and finish our discussion, so I ask for a bit more patience while we continue our conversation. Mike V • Talk 01:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC)