| Revision as of 12:55, 29 September 2013 view sourceCollect (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers47,160 edits →ArbCom proposal to further delay the Bradley Manning/Chelsea Manning move discussion: cmt← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:28, 29 September 2013 view source 212.50.182.151 (talk) →We might have been trolled by a 14-year-old passing off as a retired lawyer. What shall we now do?: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 60: | Line 60: | ||
| AFAICT, the "workshop" page is a ''tad unwieldy'', but YMMV. I posted my own comments/suggestions on the talk page for that page (which I actually read all the way through!) and rather think the opinions of others might help ArbCom in its apparent desire to rush into the netherworld of Dante. Cheers. ] (]) 12:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC) (on Wikistrike as noted previously) | AFAICT, the "workshop" page is a ''tad unwieldy'', but YMMV. I posted my own comments/suggestions on the talk page for that page (which I actually read all the way through!) and rather think the opinions of others might help ArbCom in its apparent desire to rush into the netherworld of Dante. Cheers. ] (]) 12:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC) (on Wikistrike as noted previously) | ||
| == We might have been trolled by a 14-year-old passing off as a retired lawyer. What shall we now do? == | |||
| We might have been trolled by a 14-year-old passing off as a 91-year-old retired lawyer. What shall we now do? I suspect that, given his then young age, at least half of what he wrote are (unsourced) expensive copyrighted law books and other legal materials over the USD $100 price-tag, not available to lend or even to read by laymen, and otherwise out of our reach. If you, Sir, were to believe me, can we not just bypass the usual bureaucratic process, and just simply summarily delete his creations? We cannot possibly debate with crackpots, legal or otherwise, nor conspiracy theorists, nor his friends, readers or supporters. ] (]) 14:28, 29 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 14:28, 29 September 2013
| Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end. Start a new talk topic. |
 |
 | This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated. |
| (Manual archive list) |
VE hidden: now help fix 3 months of nowiki
This is a reminder to find prior pages with garbled "</nowiki>" text and correct them (see: search 100: "nowiki" "the"). With the WMF decision to hide the VE menu option (as "opt-in" feature) on 23 September 2013 (see: dif354 in wp:VPT), then the rate of VE users inserting nowiki tags should drop drastically, and so fixing the prior nowiki tags will solve the problem finally. Some twisted nowiki-tag text is so warped that I do not think a Bot could fix them (in some cases, 4 unrelated nowiki wikilinks have been inserted at each wikilink; see dif559). However, a common warped pattern is:
- ]]
In rare cases, the fix can be just "]" but it might take a while to see it. The latest nowiki-tag error I have fixed from wp:VisualEditor was garbled into the page on 17 September 2013. However, hundreds of garbled nowiki-tag contortions have been saved for the whole 3 months, July through September, and I think at least 300 more pages need to be fixed. For a while, almost all nowiki problems were being repaired, by thousands of extra edits, but perhaps people burned out and left 300 or more unfixed pages. It has been 3 months of contorted text, in perhaps 40,000 pages (most re-edited to fix). VE usage had dropped to 3% of username edits on enwiki, with only 20% of new usernames, and people who opt-in to use VE are likely to know to avoid the nowiki errors (formerly 600 per day). -Wikid77 (talk) 04:48/13:22, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- These are now tagged with an edit filter, but, curiously, not all edits tagged "nowiki" are also tagged as VE edits, for example, see this diff. Why would a new user like 186.7.95.63 go out of their way to nowiki a bullet list—indeed, how does a new user like this even know about nowiki tags? Wbm1058 (talk) 15:13, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- Most edits by IPs are edits by experienced editors that have chosen not to register or chosen not to log in. Don't confuse failing to have an account with being inexperienced.—Kww(talk) 05:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- It could be someone who logged in from an internet cafe and spent half an hour editing this single article with VE. Then a couple days later they spent another 30 minutes on it in another cafe session. I wonder if the nowikis were some residue from the VE session two days earlier? It doesn't make sense that they would go to the trouble to nowiki this list. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- I'm no fan of VE, but no, it can't contaminate machines and make them insert nowikis in subsequent edits.—Kww(talk) 14:16, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- I just fixed a new one tagged both VE and nowiki. Don't know if there is a way to tell for sure whether this is a VE bug or a user error. I think maybe they were just trying to insert a space between "]" and "(East India Company)" – anyhow, that's the additional fix I made. Wbm1058 (talk) 15:20, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- I'm no fan of VE, but no, it can't contaminate machines and make them insert nowikis in subsequent edits.—Kww(talk) 14:16, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- It could be someone who logged in from an internet cafe and spent half an hour editing this single article with VE. Then a couple days later they spent another 30 minutes on it in another cafe session. I wonder if the nowikis were some residue from the VE session two days earlier? It doesn't make sense that they would go to the trouble to nowiki this list. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- Most edits by IPs are edits by experienced editors that have chosen not to register or chosen not to log in. Don't confuse failing to have an account with being inexperienced.—Kww(talk) 05:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, I see. Funny how I learn of such happenings from an off-wiki site. Is that story a fair characterization of events? Hats off to you sir. Now I see that Signpost has covered it as well. I figured some time ago it would take the WMF a while to fix all the bugs, so had tuned out for a while; decided to just check back periodically to see how things were going. Still hoping they get it right eventually. I still don't understand the aversion to ], after all that is the MediaWiki logo. That's much easier than finding the right button with your mouse or remembering some arcane ctrl-keyboard "shortcut". Wbm1058 (talk) 19:52, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Update on Block Appeal to Founder?
| I'll have something for you by Friday.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:56, 28 September 2013 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Jimbo, we had a generally constructive exchange of six emails two weeks ago today, your last stating at the end you'd research it more and get back to me. As the days keep getting checked off the calendar, I begin to worry that my followup emails are lost in your email client's twitchy spam filter (which you've referred to more than once here). Therefore I thought I'd check with you here. Can I give you any more information to help you make your decision? It's also perhaps worth mentioning that, by publicly reposting it I think exactly a month ago, you agreed to hear it. While not wanting to complain, thirty days is a significant amount of time to keep me hanging in what administrator Bwilkins/ESL has referred to as "the hell that is eternal block.". To those new to this, we are testing the clemency granting power of him that holds the "founder bit." This was laid out by Jimbo in 2004. The principle is that once the blocked editor exhausts all other options, he or she may yet appeal to founder, who hears it or ignores it at founder's sole discretion. In my case I was blocked May 2012 for socking but never did it. Socks are multiple accounts that deceive, I was always forthrightly (it's in my very first edit) a single account editor who switched for online privacy reasons (WP:CLEANSTART) and never went back. Despite my solid contributions even in my short time as Kolton Kosm1k (see signature), I was labeled "sock" by the powerful arbitrators Timotheus Canens and Silktork who provided neither diff nor discussion, contrary to their communication duty under WP:ADMIN, which is policy. Along the line a number of WP:AN/ANI personalities lined up behind it, armed with invincible suspicion, block buttons at the ready, and no evidence at all. They took great joy pushing me around at those mob-like chat forums, on several occasions. In strict accordance with WP:APPEAL, and providing research and complete explanation, Nihonjoe unblocked. But that was like cutting off the record player at the neverending ANI block party, so they kidnapped it and reblocked, based on no policy at all. Here's what respected bureaucrat Nihonjoe said, who actually bothered to research my case. "After carefully reviewing everything I could find regarding alleged sockpuppetry (the reason for the initial block), I can find no solid evidence of actual sockpuppetry. Using an IP address and announcing that it is you is not disallowed. As far as I can tell, the main use of the IP addresses has been to try and ask for further review. Since he was prevented from editing his own talk page, and was getting little to no response via email, this seems to be an understandable attempt to get someone to pay attention. Reviewing the definitions given at WP:SOCK: There is no evidence of additional accounts created in order to avoid detection; There is no evidence of using another person's account; There is no evidence of logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address; (emphasis added) There is no evidence of reviving old unused accounts (or "sleepers") and presenting them as different users; and There is no evidence of persuading friends or acquaintances to create accounts for the purpose of supporting one side of a dispute... The editor's contributions prior to the indef block were generally acceptable and certainly not warranting a block of this magnitude. Therefore, I have unblocked the account... I think this punishment has gone on far longer than necessary, given the severe lack of solid evidence of serious wrongdoing." Jimbo, I think there's no conceivable violation of confidence to say here that in our emails you faulted my block evasion, saying I should've researched and applied policy, emailed people for help and so forth. I said I had no choice, nobody was following policy, and Beeblebrox and Spartaz had stealth-blocked (no notification at my talkpage) my talkpage access and email function. Did I really have no choice or did I merely "feel" that way? Well, I would say both are true from my perspective. For those who feel I "copped an attitude," yeah okay, but after my years of productive editing without incident I was righteously ticked off at being blocked as a sock by someone who flicked his twinkle button and never explained a word. Anyone reading this who's interested in this discussion, even though Jimbo agreed to hear it, it'll likely be reverted by one ANI personality or other. I'll not edit war on another's talkpage, but you might consider restoring it on a "let's hear this out basis." This is Kolton Kosm1k (replace "Ks" and "k" and "1" with "Cs" and "c" and "i"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.254.181.32 (talk) 15:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC) |
ArbCom proposal to further delay the Bradley Manning/Chelsea Manning move discussion
Greetings Jimbo. As I recall, you would have preferred a shorter time before allowing a new discussion on the Bradley Manning/Chelsea Manning title dispute. Presently, ArbCom is considering a proposal to extend that time "until October 14 or the closing of this case, whichever occurs first". I think that this would be a bad idea, as the community has already used this thirty-day period to put together the most thorough move request I have yet seen prepared to launch at 03:50 (UTC) Sep 30, 2013. If you continue to prefer that this matter be resolved sooner rather than later, you may wish to relay your preference to ArbCom. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:09, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
- I thought that ArbCom tended to avoid interference with the flow of community decisions, and focused on matters where the community was divided or undecided. Any thoughts? -Wikid77 (talk) 07:17, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
- There's something very overreaching and NSA-ish beginning to emanate from the case pages, much of it originating in Arbitrator Kiril Lokshin. If I were to sit here and just point out the ruling that the WMF's non-discrimination policy is applicable to content dispute to ordering that an article title be changed to indefinitely topic-banning a user for a single unseemly edit, one could just dismiss that as sour grapes. But the cherry on top of is voting to oppose sanction for user Josh Gorand. Why? Because he agrees with Gorand's point-of-view on the topic at hand. See this; "While Josh's conduct was not ideal, he was largely justified in his criticism; the discussion was riddled with virulently transphobic comments. A certain amount of excessive zeal can be forgiven in the face of such.". So, I'd like people to really look at the balance of things here; 1 user makes 1 bad comment == topic-ban, while 1 user makes 15-20 bad comments but it's A-OK. Lokshin excuses atrocious behavior if the user was doing it for what he perceives as the right reason. Tarc (talk) 12:43, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
AFAICT, the "workshop" page is a tad unwieldy, but YMMV. I posted my own comments/suggestions on the talk page for that page (which I actually read all the way through!) and rather think the opinions of others might help ArbCom in its apparent desire to rush into the netherworld of Dante. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC) (on Wikistrike as noted previously)
We might have been trolled by a 14-year-old passing off as a retired lawyer. What shall we now do?
We might have been trolled by a 14-year-old passing off as a 91-year-old retired lawyer. What shall we now do? I suspect that, given his then young age, at least half of what he wrote are (unsourced) expensive copyrighted law books and other legal materials over the USD $100 price-tag, not available to lend or even to read by laymen, and otherwise out of our reach. If you, Sir, were to believe me, can we not just bypass the usual bureaucratic process, and just simply summarily delete his creations? We cannot possibly debate with crackpots, legal or otherwise, nor conspiracy theorists, nor his friends, readers or supporters. 212.50.182.151 (talk) 14:28, 29 September 2013 (UTC)