User talk:Mathsci/Archive 29

Advice

Mathsci, this is really meant as a friendly request – could you please consider just taking a step back at the Arbcom thing? I appreciate you feel exasperated, but with all these repeated posts I'm afraid you are really not doing yourself a favour. Just give it a rest for now. You have made your case understood, but now you are coming across as increasingly aggressive, and that only fuels the whole mess more. Please just try and get some distance from this whole situation. (You're always welcome to give me a note if any new problem emerges, of course.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your point. There is a pile-on effect, accompanied by wikilawyering with misunderstandings proliferating. That shows that there's very little order in the whole affair. It is particularly difficult, because Cla68 has made the case exclusively about me. However, I would far prefer if the views of those manning WP:AE and interpreting arbcom rulings took the fore. They have the best idea of what's going on. The point about the motion is that it was phrased as something general whereas it applied to a very specific set of users. I am in fact extremely tired in real life with a whole set of things to do made more difficult by being away from home.

Any way, thanks for your advice. I will not respond now except privately through you or other AE administrators. Mathsci (talk) 16:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Get well soon.

I'm always glad to see well edited articles about mathematics on Wikipedia, so I hope you will be able to join that effort as your other activities permit. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:45, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Experiment

Mathsci (UCL HH) 195.194.4.65 (talk) 17:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Wishing you well

Mathsci, you have my sincere wishes on a favorable recovery. You are always (and have always been) in my thoughts as a stalwart defender of this noble, but perhaps ultimately foolish, project that we all have so heavily invested ourselves in. I have always looked up to you in this regard, since I very first joined this project, although I have not had much direct interaction with you. I myself am unable to commit myself as stauchly as you to the project. For instance, ArbCom scares the hell out of me. In spite of this I have found myself embroiled in minor skirmishes of my own, some of my own making no doubt, but more just because there was no one else around. One thing I have noticed is that after a period of rest, often those windmills we once fought against tend to dissolve when we do not champion ourselves against them. It is the conflict itself that sustains them. I hope you will take this for what it is: sincere counsel from a much less experienced Wikipedian (as well as a young mathematician). I do consider you a friend, and wish you well. Yours, Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:39, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Best wishes for a speedy recovery. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Get well soon. Volunteer Marek  01:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Me too. Relax, take a break, best wishes William M. Connolley (talk) 08:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Reconsider

This really isn't going to do you any favors. In general I'd recommend you back off a bit. I'm familiar with some of the folks you're up against and when they can tell they're getting to you, they bore in that much harder. The best response is to be as dull, laconic and bland as you can manage. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I think this sounds like excellent advice. There are far too many unsavory people gaining pleasure from your pain. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

A definite "highly problematic" and "deliberately provocative" strategy has been followed by one arbitrator. That has not gone unnoticed by other editors, administrators and arbitrators. We get the arbitrators that we vote for. The six I voted for were all elected with a clean number of votes. Next time, however, I might look more carefully at their content edits. Mathsci (talk) 22:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for this. It's very hard to see this ending well. Should you decide for any reason, to stop reverting Echigo mole, a large fraction of the problem would go away. It is possible that others might not be as alert as you to notice his edits, but they would not face the confusing problem that you are always the center of attention for those who recommend sanctions. One option is that you could simply open SPI reports, or notify an admin who has been following R&I, instead of doing reverts yourself. I hope you have noticed that Echigo mole has found a way to confuse and frustrate Arbcom. His plan seems to depend on you reacting in a predictable manner. You could stop being predictable. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 22:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Ed and I take your point. Like MastCell (no longer active), SBHB is completely clueful, so there was no hesitation in acting on his advice. I wish we had more clueful arbitrators. In this particular case, where the troll sock was contradicting me, I deliberately scored through their trolling with a note, to make clear that this was a sock edit. Establishing continuity with sockpuppets of any puppetmaster requires a lot of effort and, after possibly clarifying the early stages of editing in 2008-2009, an LTA page will not be so hard to prepare. That has been the missing element. In preparing an LTA page, I think it might be helfpul to have copies of deleted hoax articles made available in private, since I believe A.K.Nole's disruptive editing probably predates the registration of his username. The Devil's Advocate has indicated his intention to act as a proxy-editor for Zeromus1 and hence for two site-banned editors (Captain Occam and Ferahgo the Assassin),[1] so the current disruption is unlikely to end any time soon. If that happens, the socking issues will have become completely out of control. Mathsci (talk) 23:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Really, just let it rest a while. I know how patronizing it is when someone says "for your own good" but I'm going to say it anyway. I think you could benefit from a week or so of kicking back, listening to some good tunes, and generally staying the hell away from this goddamn dysfunctional "community" to do whatever makes you happy. Consider or disregard this as you will. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:08, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrators were told that there would be a request for amendment if the motion was passed. That was even before I privately provided details to AGK of why Zeromus1 was almost certainly a sockpuppet of Occam-Ferahgo. I have no interest in contributing academically to a project where there is no protection from harassment. Mathsci (talk) 05:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Please stop

As long as WMF insists on anyone-can-edit IP editing, we're going have vandals and trolls. You don't deserve to be harassed, obviously, but you just reward the trolling when you comment on closed ANI threads and go sticking Sockpuppet tags on IP accounts. Trolls want recognition and by naming a suspect you just encourage them. NE Ent 13:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

If you do't like me tagging IPsocks of Mikemikev, make a complaint somewhere. I would rather you didn't edit my user page any more or post messages on this talk page. If you want to be a know-it-all busybody, please do it somewhere else. Some time ago I privately contacted two admins to semiprotect my user page and Ramdrake's. That is what you should have done instead of posting here in this officious and self-important way. If the messages from the Korean IPs hadn't involved the crying girl or trolling or tags announcing Ramdrake's death, you might have had a point. But that was not the case. There are too many of the IPs to report them at WP:SPI. I would estimate so far there have been about 10-15. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 14:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I can't speak for anything else, but if you wish for your user page to be semi-protected then I'm happy to do so. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 14:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

That would be very kind of you. If you could also semiprotect Ramdrake's that would also be great. (I had previously asked Alison and NuclearWarfare, since they are familiar with Mikemikev's postings.) Thanks for your help, Mathsci (talk) 14:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I've indefinitely semi-protected both user pages. In the case of Ramdrake, a userpage is normally only protected indefinitely at the request of the respective user, but it seems relevant to make an exception to that in this case. I will leave a note for Ramdrake informing him I have protected his user page and that it can be removed if he so wishes. Additionally, I note that I ran a checkuser on that IP just in case, and nothing turned up. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 14:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for acting so speedily. I wouldn't have expected checkuser to help because the IPs seem to be Mikemikev displaced in Korea. The editing style is identical to his previous trolling. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 14:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

It's worth checking these things anyway, as it only takes a few second and people some times mess these things up and leave something that checkuser can pick up on. Anyway, let me know if I can be of further assistance. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 14:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Please...

... do me a favour and stay off the Amendmend page thread too from now on. You're unlikely to achieve anything good by posting more. The more you say, the more others will feel entitled to say in return, and it will be yet another unstoppable avalanche of mutual recriminations just as we had a few weeks ago. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Links?

Got some links for those notices or warnings from EdJohnston and MBisanz to SightWatcher you just mentioned over in Arbistan? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I added them there. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 18:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Userfied article

See User:Mathsci/Jeremy Dunning-Davies - please let me know when you're finished. Dougweller (talk) 17:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks. Mathsci (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

SPI case

I've closed the SPI request. Regarding those unblocked accounts, if they do cause any trouble feel free to ping me to block them (or ping any other admin, you can use this diff if you need to convince them). --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 18:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

..

Seasons greetings to you and yours
Dougweller (talk) 14:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Question

Hey Mathsci, I was just wondering why you reverted my recent readdition of the section of AN/I entitled "Requesting the deletion of an edit summary"? I was under the impression that, especially on high-traffic (relatively speaking) pages such as AN/I, it is always ill-advised to delete content as opposed to allowing it to enter the AN/I archives. Juhachi's request involved non-public information, but this information was not actually included in the post on AN/I. Could you please let me know of your reasoning? Kind regards, — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 10:24, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Because it involved active outing and the message was removed by the person who added it. I sent a message to oversight and two admins and the person who twice outed the OP has now been indefinitely blocked. You received an email explaining this a few minutes ago (please read it) and there was an explanation in my edit summary. Outing issues should never be discussed on ANI while identifying info is still viewable on wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 10:30, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, just got the email. I wasn't aware of the specifics of the case, I wouldn't have restored the post if I hadn't noticed that Boing! had already removed the edit summary in question. Hope the situation is resolved without too much (extra) drama. Regards, — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 10:34, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Everything was done by email. As I said there was a second edit summary with a RL name visible when you made the revert. BsZ rev-delled both edit summaries and made the indef block. Mathsci (talk) 10:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

The Gimme accounts

Not acknowledging the Gimmetoo account as being an alternate of Gimmetrow has become a sticking point for Gimmetrow, and the fact that a checkuser was done to link the accounts when he refused to do so has seriously angered him. I got a similar ration on my talkpage when I ran for checkuser: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kww&oldid=455735566#Your_response is chock full of relevant links and discussion.—Kww(talk) 15:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Marseille".

Guide for participants If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form. What this noticeboard is: It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction. What this noticeboard is not: It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct. It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums. It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN. It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy. Things to remember: Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion. Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page. Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~". If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage. Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 19:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC) I don't see your removal of the request to trim your opening at DR/N as harmful or against policy in anyway as long as you were complying. It is not my rule. We make these requests regularly and I see nothing wrong with that or your removal of the notice left on my talkpage. Seemed like a lot of nonsense to me. Thank you.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Since HPotato registered his account after editing using two IPs in Leicester, there have been trolling edits targeting me connected with HPotato's editing. These have been made by two different open proxy accounts, both blocked soon after they were reported. This kind of disruptive targeting rarely happens to me. My assumption is that the same user is operating both proxies and it doesn't take a genius to guess who that might be. Mathsci (talk) 08:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Restored deletion of a posting at WP:FTN Hello! It appeared to me that your overwriting another editor’s posting here was accidental—you didn’t mention it in the edit summary—so I restored it. Please feel free to revert if you had good reason for removing the message.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 10:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Yes, this is a known glitch in WP software caused by edit-conflict. Thanks for noticing and correcting it. Mathsci (talk) 10:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Note on copyvio You can't even have copyvio in a sandbox, I've told him that. Also, have you read WP:Close paraphrase? Dougweller (talk) 12:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Thanks I appreciate you reporting this. I wasn't sure if we should file SPI reports for IPs and now I know:) Hope you are returning to good health. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 08:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC) AE request Last time at AE, you were instructed to refrain from filing new requests without first consulting with administrators. Did you? If not, I'd strongly recommend you remove the filing. As far as I'm concerned, I logged a warning for him and he hasn't edited since, so I don't really see why this shouldn't be put to rest now. Escalation is, again, in nobody's interest. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC) I did contact an arbitrator twice yesterday with no reply. I will continue with the SPI report and remove the report at AE. Mathsci (talk) 10:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC) Thank you. Just for the record, the AE outcome said you should in any case wait for agreement from an uninvolved admin, so you should certainly not have gone ahead in the absence of a response (especially since you contacted them yesterday but the main offending edit you had to complain about was only today.) About an SPI, how would that relate to the Arbcom's prior statement that the account is a legitimate clean start [2]? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:44, 9 January 2013 (UTC) As far as communicating with arbcom is concerned, the previous sockpuppet account Zeromus1 misrepresented themselves to the arbitration committee in their appeal, claiming to edit from China. FtA has a previous history of misrepresenting sockpuppetry issues to arbitrators. I communicated with an arbitrator a month ago about the possibility of sockpuppetry, during the run-up to ACE 2012. At that stage I had no clear idea of who the puppetmaster might be (at that early stage I incorrectly suspected John245/Chester Markel/Alessandra Napolitano). Per WP:BEANS, it might be a better idea to send a report by email directly to a checkuser on arbcom, who can pass it on to other arbitrators if they see fit. That's what happened with Zeromus1. Mathsci (talk) 10:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC) YRC just beat me to it, but do not remove other editors comments per WP:TPG Darkness Shines (talk) 11:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC) Which "talk page" are you referring to? If you mean WP:AE, then that is not a talk page. The talk page is at WT:AE, so Youreallycan's hyperbolic trolling should be moved there or deleted. The instructions at the top of the page are easy enough to read. Mathsci (talk) 11:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC) Indeed. Well, somebody is certainly going to get around removing it again, soon enough, so it's probably not worth bothering about right now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC) Sandstein seems to have agreed with me about WT:AE. Mathsci (talk) 11:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC) For reference removal by Sandstein. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC) ANI notification Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I'm dropping these templates on the talk pages of every user who has posted at Talk:Men's rights in the last two sections. This is not meant to imply that I necessarily find any of your edits problematic, and is simply meant to inform you. Kevin Gorman (talk) 07:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC) Why can't ignorant bigots understand it's just a Social Construct? Hi, I've watching you deal with the racists and I want to say you are a brave individual standing up to the political establishment. Looking at this photo of Nigerian and Kenyan women[3] you can quite clearly see that the variation goes in clines such the the Kenyans would be confused with Egyptians half the time. That's obvious from several numbers calculated from the genome. Keep up the good work! 115.21.210.178 (talk) 14:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)