User talk:Ornaith: Difference between revisions

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The or button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.

If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

Ornaith, good luck, and have fun. --RashersTierney (talk) 15:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Hello! Ornaith, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! heather walls (talk) 06:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please undo your last reversion

Unless you want to earn yourself 24 hour ban, please reinstate the version of the article Stone (unit) that you reverted. See comment Talk:Stone (unit). Please also note that even though I asked you to read what was on the talk page you did not have the courtesy to do so – you reverted before I had a chance to post.

Please also reinstate the last version in the article Kilometres per hour - at any rate the section about abbreviations.

Martinvl (talk) 15:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss the changes and try to give logical and reasoned explanations for your demands on the talk pages of the respective articles. Heavy-handed threats do not impress me. Ornaith (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3RR report

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Please see comments in the article Kilometres per hour. Martinvl (talk) 04:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments in the article? Which comments? Ornaith (talk) 06:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That article!

Hi Ornaith!

I've downloaded the article. If you'd like me to send it to you, could you enable the email function on your account (which allows you to send email via wikipedia but without revealing your email address to other users) and then either let me know on my talk page or send me an email? I'll then email the article (which is in PDF format) over to you. Alternatively, if you don't want to activate the email function, let me know and i'll check that the article corroborates the information it is cited for ...

With all best,

Loriski (talk) 12:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again - sorry, I got that wrong. I've not used the email function before. So it does send meyour address so I can respond directly to you, so only use this function if you're happy to... If not, as I say, I can check it for you and post the relevant quote/section on your talk page...

All best, Loriski (talk) 13:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for that offer Loriski! I've sent you a Wiki-email. Ornaith (talk) 14:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ornaith. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Garamond Lethe 00:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article should be winging its way to you now. Garamond Lethe 16:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a million Garamond! Ornaith (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Ornaith. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Rcsprinter (orate) @ 19:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Hello Ornaith - I've added a reply, too. Thanks! --Rosiestep (talk) 19:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clue-by-four

You recently wrote the following at WP:DRN. I am replying here because it really is a separate issue from the dispute we are discussing. You wrote:

"In the other discussion that I was involved in though, it seemed that local consensus steam-rollered policy in that case. The motion to enforce a policy was defeated because there was no local consensus to do so. At least that was my view of the outcome!"

If that ever happens again, please open up a case at WP:DRN saying basically what you said above. What you describe does happen, but we like to root out the articles where it happens and apply a clue-by-four. (A play on words implying whacking someone with a "two by four" -- a standard size [two inches by four inches by eight feet] wooden beam used in US house construction). --Guy Macon (talk) 18:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guy, thanks for the advice. Perhaps you would have a quick look at the discussion I was alluding to, [1], and tell me if you agree with my synopsis. Ornaith (talk) 18:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are wrong. The only cases in which deletion is allowed without first obtaining consensus through an AfD deletion discussion are found at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. All other article deletions are subject to consensus. There was no "motion to enforce a policy" here because no such policy exists. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The motion was to delete the article because it clearly didn't comply with the policy on notability. The consensus was not to delete it, despite it not complying, and despite non-compliance being a valid reason for deletion. Or was the consensus that it did comply with policy, so shouldn't be deleted (even though it clearly didn't comply!). Ornaith (talk) 19:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

km/h and abbreviations

Hi Ornaith,

I'm keeping a list of changes I'd like to make to km/h in my sandbox. You might want to start thinking about changes or additions you'd like to see. While I'd certainly welcome comments, it might be best to put those off until we finish up with the dispute resolution.

Thanks,

Garamond Lethe 09:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

Thank you for your patience and perseverance so far with km/h. I do think this process will ultimately result in a better article, but for now, enjoy your beer and, at your leisure, drop by talk:kilometres per hour and contribute as the spirit[s] move[s] you. Garamond Lethe 03:03, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Garamond,and thanks for your valuable contributions to the discussion. I was worried that the article was being dragged away from the mainstream and into a niche and less wholesome place where there is a regulated and prescriptive use of the English language. Ornaith (talk) 09:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tea house

You have a reply at WP:Teahouse#More help required please - this time with dealing with bizarre allegations. Rich Farmbrough, 21:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]

DeFacto Sockpuppet

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I issued this ANI request in orde to break the logjam and for no other reason. Martinvl (talk) 20:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Timestamp statistics

You asked on SPI board if I would run a few numbers for you. You had a clever I idea (if I've understood it correctly): people editing under stress will tend to make edits all through their waking hours, so they will show similar patterns that would not have been there before.

In this case I'm not going to be able to calculate the p value: you didn't have enough "non-stress" edits before finding your way to "km/h" and "stone" (I'm sampling every fifth edit and would consider 20 to be the absolute minimum for generating useful values).

What I did instead was ask the probability that your first half of your edits and the second half of your edits were drawn from the same distribution. The result I got was 88% using the every-fifth-edit sampling method. That tells me that, taken as a whole (or as a half, I suppose) your editing timestamps have been quite consistent.

That being said, while these numbers are interesting they're a long way from being useful. For example, if I repeat the above test and sample every fourth edit, the p-value falls to 37%. If I raise it up to every 6th edit it falls to 25%. Maybe that means that, for your particular editing style, every fifth edit is the right way of to sample. Or maybe it means that due to some unknown effect, the 5th edit is just an artifact of the data. (That being said, measuring everyone else's self-similarity follows a similar pattern, so at least for the users I've looked at "5" does appear to be useful even though I can't explain why yet.)

Going forward I think this will be difficult to make reliable and ultimately of limited usefulness. Most sockpuppets are obvious and would be corralled well before they had accumulated enough edits for this work to apply. But I do find it interesting and will probably continue to dabble in it. If you want to follow along, the statistical software I'm using is called R. It's free and... rewards persistence.

Garamond Lethe 07:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So not at all reliable then. What about the comparison between Martinvl and DeFacto and Martinvl and myself that I asked for, for comparison? Ornaith (talk) 08:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, "not at all reliable" is not what I said.

Percent chance that your timestamps were drawn from the same distribution as:

User	Percent
User:DeFacto	47.83
User:pother	23.71
User:Mcewan (Edited Metrication of British transport)	8.583
User:Martinvl	1.846
User:Uktvhistory064 (Edited Ballydesmond)	1.389
User:Jimbo Wales	0.8245
User:Kahastok (Edited Metrication of British transport)	0.3053
User:Guy Macon	0.02847
User:Garamond Lethe	0.0001298
User:Sarah777 (Edited Ballydesmond)	0.000000003037

This is consistent with User:Ornaith and User:pother being sock puppets of User:DeFacto. It's also consistent with my having picked up on an "enthusiastic editor" signal in a particular timezone. In the absence of server logs I would want to look at a couple thousand more users before I would ban someone with this data. But we do have server logs, and my opinion isn't being asked for, so we'll just wait and see what happens. Garamond Lethe 15:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Garamond, this looks compelling, but I'm wary of of such analyses as there are self-evidently factors involved which have not been accounted for. You clearly need to concentrate on editors who recognise a ruthless mission poster when they see one, and one who understands the scope, influence and respect given in Ireland to EU directives. Thanks for the response though. I'd be interested to discuss this more, but looking at the next message on my page here, it would apprear that I've got something else to deal with first. Ornaith (talk) 16:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Garamond, I have found some excellent data for you to test your new model with! After following links that my own user account page has recently been endowed with, I would love to see the following users also added to the above table for comparison. User:2.97.82.73, User:6 foot 6, User:94.197.146.76, User:94.197.49.214, User:Berpulson, User:FreedomFighter84, User:Goldensock84, User:Sixteeneighty4, User:Sometimefour. Ornaith (talk) 18:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Garamond, I look forward to seeing your numbers for the above 'control' accounts, but with that nightmare apparently over now, and my good name restored, I've got other business to catch up with for now. I'll be back at - see if your model can predict when. ;-) Ornaith (talk) 21:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

July 2012

@Toddst1, can you explain what you mean by that please. Did you read any of the discussion about this bad-faith sock-puppet accusation on the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DeFacto page? Did you also read the bit at the bottom that User:AGK wrote, it went like this:

On hold - AGK [•] 14:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Cross-checking FreedomFighter84 (talk+ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • spi block • block log • SUL • checkuser (log))

AGK has the investigation on hold, presumably he's realised that something doesn't add up here. And who is "FreedomFighter84", and what is their connection here?

Also I see AGK has cast serious doubt on the whole shenanigans anyway, by declaring:

That I appear "to edit from a few hundred miles away (and in the same region)" [in relation to DeFacto I presume].
That "the connection is through a mobile provider" [which it may well also be, but this computer hasn't moved off this desk in at least the last 5 yesrs].
Then "Given the preoccupation with the same article" [but without clarifying which article in particular was meant, but presumably "stone (unit)" because I don't see any mention of DeFacto in the history of "kilometres per hour", and "metrication of British transport" didn't even exist the last time DeFacto edited. I started editing "stone (unit)" after I saw the inflammatory terminology "Republic of Ireland" mentioned in an edit summary by another editor, and went there to fix it, and then the other editor started reverting everything I added, and the rest is history].
And then "and same content views vis-a-vis EU directives" [content views that are probably held by 75% of the Irish population].
Or even "the date the account was created" [the date that my account was created was the date that I came across an article about a subject close to my heart, but which had a glaring error in it, and thus I decided to try to do something about it].

What is your role in this dandy ritual? You appear to have made your mind up about me without reference to any of the evidence. Is that how Wikipedia discipline is dispensed?

I notice too that you have said the same thing about Pother, my co-defendent, even though he apparently lives thousands of miles away!

I think you owe us a full explanation of what is occurring here. Ornaith (talk) 17:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been unblocked. I will withdraw my comments from the SPI and let someone else handle this. Toddst1 (talk) 18:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Toddst1, thanks, I'm glad that nightmare is now over. Sorry if I was a bit sharp above! I'll buy you a Guinness next time we meet, for your decency and decorum in acknowledging your mistake! Ornaith (talk) 20:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why have I been blocked again?

Yesterday a bad-faith allegation of "sock puppetry" against me collapsed in disarray as evidence from other editors contradicted that of the filer, messages from administrators conflicted with each other (and indeed judging by this contribution from User:Toddst1 were based on personal grudges), the report from the "check user" failed to produce any coherent, convincing or reasoned case that any abuse had occured, the clerks reversed each others actions: User:Berean Hunter closed the case in this edit then User:Keilana archived it in this edit then User:AGK unarchived it [2] and Toddst1 unclosed it here. Then AGK and Toddst1 exchanged a few words, a mediator (User:Guy Macon) asked for clarification of what was going on in this edit, and then User:Timotheus Canens removed a sock puppet category from the report.

The net result was that, less than 2 hours after a premature blocking was issued by Toddst1 in this edit he reversed the mistake with this edit.

Looking through the various edit histories of the parties involved, it would seem that the "check user" reprimanded Toddst1, for his "serious misjudgement", in blocking me (this edit), stating:

"Ornaith edits from North America, and the other account edits from Europe... why did you block the accounts?... Please revert your block."

and then, almost immediately, Toddst1 reacted with the unblock.

As far as I can tell from the SPI page, and in the absence of any messages to me following the unblock from Toddst1, I should not be blocked, yet it seems that I have been blocked again for some reason, and indeed some helpful soul plastered a big message on my user page to that effect.

Who can sort this mess out please? Ornaith (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like someone made an error and then corrected the error. Of course it is entirely possible that the first person got it right and it was the correction that was in error; I cannot verify this either way because it is based on checkuser info that I cannot access and which could reveal the real-life identity or identities of the three usernames listed is the SPI. I do have confidence that SPI usually gets it right, but anyone can make a mistake. That being said, just as I assumed that you were not a sockpuppet pending a SPI ruling, I am now assuming that you are pending a successful appeal. Again nothing personal -- it's just that a skillful sock tends to look exactly like a user.

The next step for you would be to carefully read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks, especially the sections on "Sockpuppetry blocks" "Checkuser and Oversight blocks" and "Examples of bad unblock requests" --Guy Macon (talk) 22:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy, thanks for your civilised reaction and response. I'm devastated that Wikipedia could get it so wrong. I'm glad that it isn't the death penalty for this one! The SPI comments still look confused to me, and I've emailed AGK to see if he would try and clarify it all. It's self-evident, to me at least, if not to the baying mob, that some false assumption or misreading of data has occurred. Thanks for the recommended reading, I'm not sure if I've got the stomach for it all though. I'll wait and see if AGK can put it all back together for me. What makes you say that you "have confidence that SPI usually gets it right"? Once you're blocked there's no obvious way of challenging the reasoning or the motives. It is all seems so summary and so mediaeval. Ornaith (talk) 22:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another excellent question. The reason I think SPI in general and checkuser in particular usually gets it right (which does not mean they got it right this time, but that's the way to bet) is because in many of the cases a new sockpuppet pops up that passes the same WP:DUCK test, often with "ha ha you can't stop me" taunting. Also, it is not very often that someone who is determined to be a sockpuppet even bothers appealing the block, much less is successful. Remember, I still have no way of knowing whether the person I am talking to is an innocent party who is going through what must be a quite upsetting experience or a sockmaster who is laughing at me for responding -- if the sockmaster is good they both look the same -- but if they did get it wrong this time and this gets reversed I will be asking some tough questions about why it happened and how we can avoid it happening again. So,, if you aren't a sockpuppet, I am sorry you had to go through this, and if you are, please stop wasting my time. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ornaith, if you aren't Pother/DeFacto, then making (this change) in the middle of the SPI was extremely stupid. If you are Pother/DeFacto, what can I say. Martinvl (talk) 06:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Martinvl, the above could be interpreted as baiting a blocked user. Please drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Martinvl, as I am neither Pother or DeFacto, I can only take your comment in one way, as a personal attack. Given that I also believe that you don't actually believe that I am them either, that leads me to the following conclusions:

You came here to bait me, to insult me and to attempt to bang some more nails in, with the hope of prejudicing any appeal that you fear I may make.
I, unlike you, have behaved honorably throughout this witch hunt, and I can hold my head up high.
You are hoping that attempting to equate the removal of that unworthy content with the work of a wicked little sock-puppet, that you will frighten away the other honourable editors attempting to remove your POV stamp from it right now, as I was.
I see in the history of that article that you, and your bedmate there, are isolated in your position that anything worthy of an article of its own can be salvaged from the biased and unsupported personal POV content that currently graces it.

Ornaith (talk) 15:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy, thanks for another very diplomatic reply, and for your robust comment to Martinvl. Reading the article about the so-called "duck test" reveals it to be nothing more than a condescending and arrogant expression used to smugly and thinly veil an action based on scant, or no, evidence at all. The "duck test", at best, gives a reasonable excuse to start asking questions and look for evidence, but nothing more. How can such a weak level of certainty that anything untoward is going on, lead to an indefinite block? It is almost unimaginable that, with no time given to defend oneself, a result based on nothing more than a "reasonable suspicion" can have such dire consequences. And especially when that "suspicion" is actually nothing like "reasonable" if you read the "reasoning" given, to anyone not suffering from an extremely severe dose of confirmatory bias, that is. Ornaith (talk) 16:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 251: / Line 251: @@
 :::::*I see in the history of that article that you, and your bedmate there, are isolated in your position that anything worthy of an article of its own can be salvaged from the biased and unsupported personal POV content that currently graces it.
 :::::[[User:Ornaith|Ornaith]] ([[User talk:Ornaith#top|talk]]) 15:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
+::::::@Guy, thanks for another very diplomatic reply, and for your robust comment to Martinvl. Reading the article about the so-called "duck test" reveals it to be nothing more than a condescending and arrogant expression used to smugly and thinly veil an action based on scant, or no, evidence at all. The "duck test", at best, gives a reasonable excuse to start asking questions and look for evidence, but nothing more. How can such a weak level of certainty that anything untoward is going on, lead to an indefinite block? It is almost unimaginable that, with no time given to defend oneself, a result based on nothing more than a "reasonable suspicion" can have such dire consequences. And especially when that "suspicion" is actually nothing like "reasonable" if you read the "reasoning" given, to anyone not suffering from an extremely severe dose of [[Confirmation bias|confirmatory bias]], that is. [[User:Ornaith|Ornaith]] ([[User talk:Ornaith#top|talk]]) 16:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)