User talk:The ed17

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The Signpost
14 October 2016
The Bugle
Issue CXXV, September 2016

Published by the Military history WikiProject

User talk:Engleham[edit]

I posted a non-template 3RR warning on that page with regard to Charles Higham (biographer), and note you had been involved with that editor in the recent past. Collect (talk) 12:45, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'll let another admin sort that out—I don't have enough time to take an in-depth look into the situation right now. Is Engleham being incredibly uncivil again too? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:29, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
"Persistent" in his insistence on edits which he never got a consensus for in the past. Sigh. Collect (talk) 01:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Maybe AN? Sorry I can't help more. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:17, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

The (fitb) is accusing me of heinous crimes against Wikipedia in many places and edit warring to boot [1] [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13] sticking to the last two days. Another dozen or more in the prior single day. You warned him in the past - if you do not view this as a violation of what you said he should not do, I will be damned if I bring this to AN/I. In fact, I suggest that his affronts, including his charge that I am anti-gay, have Alzheimers, and am an affront to human existence at all represent substantial evidence that he is not here to build a neutral encyclopedia at all.

your very own endlessly tedious soapbox lecturings on bias. (But as everyone who has ever crossed you knows all too well, such injunctions don't apply to you -- especially if you think you can get a rise out of the other party, puerile unhelpful rubbish that some other editor will eventually delete anyway - and not just your nemesis User:Dr. Blofeld., Your predicable baiting bullshit can rot by itself, Rosenfield's biography of Hepburn never appeared. Why? Because he suicided the same month as he wrote the review slagging Higham, What?! You left out the part about the Gay Illuminati Conspiracy., I've removed all the shrill adolescent bolding. Bad form, but it was making the RfC impossible to read, not just your own rants - sorry, opinion, How about: instead of misrepresenting due process as edit warring, you might review some of your own contributions in that regard, beginning here: Talk:Harold_Holt As someone in our office laughingly commented recently while scrolling through a certain history: "There's nothing wrong with being an old steamer. But they need to read what they write!" , the bolding is merely to demonstrate that I too can do it, like the hysterics who object to any mention of Cooper having a homosexual best friend.) and on and on and on. Carthago delenda est. Collect (talk) 14:36, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey Collect, sorry that I missed this—I've been offline. I would really advise you to go to AN, as I'm not going to have the time to delve into this situation. Best, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Dramaboards are a pain for a person who has at least eight people tracking my every edit (including IPs who mysteriously appear seeking my exit from Wikipedia). As a result, I have sworn off them in the belief that someone actually will give a damn (GWTW reference). The number of POV pushers with "strong alliances" (minced oath under my breath) is vast, and the number of people who actually think policies should be followed is far too small. Collect (talk) 12:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
I do empathize with that—I've had one person doing something similar recently. But again, I really just don't have the time to examine this. I'm sorry. Another admin? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


hi, was looking at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Next_issue/Obituary you might be interested in adding:

thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for this, I've added the article contributing plans. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:29, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 August 2016[edit]

Precious anniversary[edit]

Four years ago ...
Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
... you were recipient
no. 206 of Precious,
a prize of QAI!

I like your obituary for Kevin. I wrote A Requiem in Our Time, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:19, 7 August 2016 (UTC) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:19, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXIV, August 2016[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 07:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: July 2016[edit]

This month in GLAM logo.png

Read this edition in fullSingle-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 02:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 August 2016[edit]

John Calvin was not French, IP rant[edit]

Since you were somewhat involved with this "person" back in November 2015,[15] I thought I should notify you of that particular "person's" return.

I do not believe that we need this kind of racist garbage on Wikipedia.

@Kansas Bear: looks like an IP has removed the comment, rightfully in my opinion (despite the reverts). Will try to keep an eye on it, but I won't be on much in the next 24. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:10, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Ok. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Story that might be of interest[edit]

I imagine that you probably have known about this for ages, but in case not... It looks like an interesting project. Nick-D (talk) 03:02, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I am and already passed it onto my classmates. :-) A professor here works at the Coastal Studies Institute, and I believe several students have as well (although I'm not sure if they're involved with this). Thanks for sending it to me! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

FAC voluntary mentoring scheme[edit]

During a recent lengthy discussion on the WP:FAC talkpage, several ideas were put forward as to how this procedure could be improved, particularly in making it more user-friendly towards first-time nominees. The promotion rate for first-timers at FAC is depressingly low – around 16 percent – which is a cause for concern. To help remedy this, Mike Christie and I, with the co-operation of the FAC coordinators, have devised a voluntary mentoring scheme, in which newcomers will guided by more experienced editors through the stages of preparation and submission of their articles. The general format of the scheme is explained in more detail on Wikipedia: Mentoring for FAC, which also includes a list of editors who have indicated that they are prepared to act as mentors.

Would you be prepared to take on this role occasionally? If so, please add your name to the list. By doing so you incur no obligation; it will be entirely for you to decide how often and on which articles you want to act in this capacity. We anticipate that the scheme will have a trial run for a few months before we appraise its effectiveness. Your participation will be most welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 21:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 18[edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg The Wikipedia Library


Books & Bytes
Issue 18, June–July 2016
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi, Samwalton9, UY Scuti, and Sadads

  • New donations - Edinburgh University Press, American Psychological Association, Nomos (a German-language database), and more!
  • Spotlight: GLAM and Wikidata
  • TWL attends and presents at International Federation of Library Associations conference, meets with Association of Research Libraries
  • OCLC wins grant to train librarians on Wikimedia contribution

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration Case opened[edit]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man.

Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Evidence.

Please add your evidence by September 17, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For non-parties who wish to opt out of further notifications for this case please remove yourself from the list held here

For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 September 2016[edit]

The Bugle: Issue CXXV, September 2016[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 13:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors September 2016 News[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors September 2016 News
Writing Magnifying.PNG

Copyeditors progress.png

Hello everyone, and welcome to the September 2016 GOCE newsletter.

>>> Sign up for the September Drive, already in progress! <<<

July Drive: The July drive was a roaring success. We set out to remove April, May, and June 2015 from our backlog (our 149 oldest articles), and by 23 July, we were done with those months. We added July 2015 (66 articles) and copy-edited 37 of those. We also handled all of the remaining Requests from June 2016. Well done! Overall, we recorded copy edits to 240 articles by 20 editors, reducing our total backlog to 13 months and 1,656 articles, the second-lowest month-end total ever.

August Blitz: this one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 21 through 27 August; the theme was sports-related articles in honor of the 2016 Summer Olympics. Of the eight editors who signed up, five editors removed 11 articles from the backlog. A quiet blitz – everyone must be on vacation. Barnstars and rollover totals are located here. Thanks to all editors who took part.

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Jonesey95, Corinne and Tdlsk.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


Please see the large instructions at the toon of the page"If you wish to submit evidence, please do so in a new section (or in your own section, if you have already have one). Do not edit anyone else's section." (emphasis present in the original) – Gavin (talk) 06:12, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm really not worried about wikilawyering bullet point two. I believe that Andrew will agree that it's a beneficial change, but if not, it'll take him about .5 seconds to remove. Apologies for editing your section, though. That was daft. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
It's nowt to do with wikilawyering: it has never been acceptable to add one's thoughts to other people's TP comments, and doubly so at ArbCom. As well as the quoted wording above, the instructions also reiterate that"You must submit evidence in your own section. Editors who change other users' evidence may be sanctioned." If Andrew wants to subsequently add the comment, that is entirely up to him, but you cannot and must not change his statement. - Gavin (talk) 09:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: August 2016[edit]

This month in GLAM logo.png

Read this edition in fullSingle-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 17:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC)


Just a quick head's up, I have just blocked this user for a month. You placed a similar block a few months back, suggesting the next one should be indefinite. I have stopped short of that for now, as I am cautiously optimistic that a month off will allow everybody else to get back to work, but have emphasised future blocks may well be indefinite. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: That seems ... rather short, given my previous month-long block not even four months ago (where's the escalation?) and other blocks in the past (as I said at the time: "Engleham's block log has three blocks for personal attacks, one for violating BLP, two for both at the same time, and one for socking to boot (another was overturned). Then this one today. Have we given [Engleham] too much rope?"). There was also a developing consensus on ANI in favor of a community ban. Perhaps you closed the discussion a bit early? Best, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:49, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Here's my take on it. Engleham is a productive editor with a barbed sense of humour that gets him into trouble when other people don't share it. (cf: The Troggs Tapes). The ANI thread was trending in only one direction towards a full ban or indefinite block, and the conversation was approaching (but had not quite reached) a bloodbath - at which point I felt another admin would have placed such a sanction. Nipping it in the bud this way stops the immediate disruption and gets editors back to whatever they were doing, and it also provides Engleham with a route back into editing Wikipedia. The project doesn't have a good way of dealing with editors who make a lot of good mainspace edits but also cause disruption, so we just have to pick whatever is the least worst option at any time. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
There's two problems with that approach. One, you're cutting the community out of the process. One could make a stronger argument here, but I don't want to unjustly ascribe motives to you; it suffices to say that we operate this site based on consensus, and you've deliberately circumvented that.
Two, while you're very right to say that "The project doesn't have a good way of dealing with editors who make a lot of good mainspace edits but also cause disruption," you've unfortunately chosen to invoke the Malleus defense in response. In my personal opinion, that's an argument that should be immediately disqualified whenever it invariably pops up. No editor with an extensively invective and uncivil editing history should be allowed to continue using language that actively drives away other editors. It simply does not matter how positive their mainspace and content contributions are. Those are easy to count; the amount of edits lost from people who leave the site or decide to edit less aren't. That's one reason why there's no special provision for "but they've made so many other good edits" in WP:CIVIL. (Would you say that you wouldn't have blocked an editor making similar comments if they had only made a thousand edits?)
And just in case it isn't clear, all comments here are said in good faith and cheer. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I personally think things are more complicated than that. I can certainly imagine somebody kicking off if I closed the ANI thread as "no action". Cary Grant's article has been put through the wringer more than a few times, and a month's block helps get some stability on it. Beyond that, I think Engleham admitted himself he gets on better writing obscure topics and things only go pear-shaped when he works on things of interest to multiple editors. He also admits to liking Bill Hicks, which means I don't think he is deliberately and purposely setting out to offend. He might exhaust Collect's patience, but I can't see him quitting Wikipedia over it. Anyway, bottom line is Engleham is blocked, and if we're having a near identical discussion on ANI in late October, feel free to serve seafood. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election[edit]

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection[edit]

Padlock-blue.svg Hello, The ed17. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.
Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 September 2016[edit]

The Rambling Man arbitration proposed decision posted[edit]

A proposed decision has been posted in the open The Rambling Man arbitration page. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. If you are not a party, you may opt out of further notifications regarding this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Mass Message List. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Your opinion on declaring WP:INVOLVED[edit]

The ed17, what would be the best way to have an administrator declared as WP:INVOLVED when it comes to administrative actions concerning me? In the case I am speaking of, I have had a tempestuous history with the administrator for sometime and have made it clear more than once that I do not think that this administrator should act in an administrative capacity regarding me. Despite this, the administrator continues to do so. And, yes, I have examples of our tempestuous history. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:36, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

She means me.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I do. I love how you comment now, but ignore me for most of the day. WP:INVOLVED clearly states, "Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute." That fits us to a T. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
I've been "ignoring" you because anything that I am permitted to tell you at this point would only inflame matters. If I thought I could say something that would help you calm down, I would. INVOLVED has to do with content, not with my actions as an administrator. I should also say that although you're angry with me at the moment, there have been other times when you were quite pleased with my decisions. Don't ask me for diffs; I don't keep a catalog of such events, good or bad. I'm a functionary. I have certain very clear responsibilities. One is not to breach the privacy policy, and of course I won't do that to satisfy your or anyone else's needs. You should learn to trust me more. You don't have to like me or agree with me, but at least trust me. I actually trust you. I think you're bright, often incisive, and honest. You do get a little carried away at times, but that's part of your temperament and isn't going to change. Even that has its appealing aspects. Right at the moment it's a bit annoying. :-) Take care.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Bbb23, it would have been helpful for you to identify the drive-by socks (even in the block log), but you did not. How are you not permitted to reveal who was operating those accounts? Those accounts are not IPs. Checkusers have openly revealed such information to me before. Identifying drive-by socks on a matter such as this is important, especially considering that Tisane does drive-by socking to my talk page. This case was important for a number of reasons, including as far as perception by outsiders go. You stated that "INVOLVED has to do with content, not with my actions as an administrator." That is not necessarily true. As this case shows, a number of editors felt that administrator was WP:INVOLVED because of the way he had interacted with me in the past. None of those interactions were a matter of him disagreeing with me over article content. The way that an administrator acts with an editor matters. I've been clear that some of my interactions with you leave much to be desired, so much so that I am not comfortable with you making administrative decisions regarding me. You even questioned whether or not you are involved. I am not angry with you; I am annoyed that you did not seem to give my concerns about that editor being a sock much credence and that you took the matter into your own hands and closed the case. Your close gives the impression that I am wrong, but there is a chance that I am not wrong. You didn't even sound entirely convinced that the editor is who he says he is. I feel that you should trust me more; you feel that I should trust you more. We are at an impasse. I will try to be more open-minded about you in the future, but it is not easy. I can control my temperament fairly well, actually, but I choose not to for a number of cases; this was especially true for the past three years where I needed to be stern and cold with problematic editors. I would clearly think: "Should I come across as a hothead? Or should I be very polite?" You know what I chose in some of those cases. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:23, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
All that stated, thank you for the above reply, Bbb23. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Poor Ed, look what we're doing to his Talk page. He's probably happy he doesn't have to say anything. :-) Some things I'm not permitted to tell you; other things I'm uncomfortable telling anyone. The drive-by. If that account had been brought to SPI along with evidence, I would have made a public finding, but it didn't. What I found was ambivalent. I was satisfied the account should be blocked, but I couldn't conclusively name the master, which in this instance is why I didn't tag the account (other times I don't tag for other reasons - other CUs often do the same thing, btw). My belief is the drive-by was possibly Tisane, but there were anomalies in the technical data. Hope that helps a bit. I also blocked the one that posted to your Talk page. There's a better possibility that the second editor (potato chips or whatever the hell the username was) is related to the first. Take that for what it's worth. As for the crux of the matter, I am convinced that they are who they say they are. Sorry if I gave a different impression. Anyway, I'm glad that we're having this conversation. It's probably my fault for hoping it would go away.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:27, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, the socks were likely Tisane, but this sock signed his post the way that Tisane usually does, and this sock signed his post like Markshale signs posts (with the two dashes in the front), which could be argued as a deflection on Tisane's part. For example, if Markshale is not Tisane (which I'm not convinced is the case), the two dashes with that post could have been Tisane's way of trying to make it appear that he is Markshale and that he has prevailed. The entire post was a victory dance; so is this latest link that Tisane posted to boywiki. Yes, that editor is Tisane. The boychat response is very much similar to what he emailed me before, except this time the text is explicit about a pro-child sexual abuse stance. Someone suggested that I contact Fluffernutter and/or GorillaWarfare about the boywiki content because they might be able to do something about it per WP:Oversight and/or track its editors in a way that will link them here. But boywiki is not part of Wikipedia, and I've gotten used to my "notoriety" among child sexual abusers and pedophiles, who watched this latest sockpuppet case of mine like they were watching an illegal download. I've gotten used to their disturbing posts and the way they try to undermine me here at Wikipedia. So they can mock me without me batting an eye. I did not even know about the "Super secret special admirer" matter seen at boywiki until a few days ago. I check in on the site occasionally, but have done so more recently the past few days since I knew that the latest posts there were connected to this sock case.
The main issue for me with your close is that I think you rely too heavily on CU data, which I suppose is to be expected since you are a CheckUser. Over the years, I conversed with CheckUsers who made it clear that the tool is not pixie dust and can be circumvented in a number of ways. Furthermore, CheckUsers do not always come to the same conclusion, as I demonstrated on your talk page (with the initial link above). If we look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jdogno5/Archive, what I now cite as a cautionary tale about over-reliance on the CheckUser data, we see that one CheckUser stated "Possible" and the other stated "Unrelated technically." They were wrong not to block the account. Had I not taken matters into my own hands and listed behavioral evidence, the editor who started that sockpuppet case (Betty Logan) would still be considered incorrect, despite the fact that common sense should tell a person viewing the initial case that she was right all along. Yes, I don't understand how the CheckUser tool works, but I don't think that I need to. Your close has not only given the impression that Markshale is innocent, but that the Tisane editing pattern I noted cannot be relied upon, or at least not consistently relied upon, despite the fact that it has worked without fail to identify Tisane in the past. It still remains that those edit summaries are not automated and that it's unlikely that someone other than Tisane would consistently edit like that. I cannot get past the behavioral evidence; you cannot get past the CU data and wanted me to simply stop discussing the matter because you believe you are right. So, yeah, we're at an impasse. I wish that you and/or Ivanvector would bring in second and third CheckUser opinions on this matter, for all the reasons I've stated. I pinged others in the SPI, but there were no takers. Maybe Fluffernutter and GorillaWarfare would be open to looking this case over? Maybe you wouldn't mind sharing what you know with them? You seem to mean well, but I can't get over the unease I feel about this case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Commenting, since I've been pinged. Child protection concerns should follow the advice at Wikipedia:Child protection. If what you're looking for here is some input on a checkuser case, I'm probably not the one to ask—though I hold the checkuser right, it's by dint of being an arbitrator and not because I possess any notable skill in identifying socks. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for commenting, GorillaWarfare. I'm aware of the WP:Child protection policy, but I don't see any child protection action to take in this case. It doesn't seem like Wikipedia or the WP:WMF could do anything about the other wiki. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
If there are any child protection concerns, I would send them to the WMF so that they can be the ones to decide if there is action to take. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:04, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
So. Alright, then. First, on where we started here. Bbb, usually if you have to ask if you're involved, you're involved. ;-) But really, I see the points you're raising in that post and don't want to take a side. I would leave it to others to take action regarding Flyer (if any needs to be taken); it'll be less drama for everyone.
Second, I can't really comment on everything else, not being a functionary or familiar with the case. I do agree with GW that it's better to pass on everything to the WMF so they have all of the evidence when deciding whether to take action. (obligatory disclaimer: while I work with the WMF, this comment is made only in a volunteer capacity, and I have no role—formal or otherwise—with the Support and Safety team). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:45, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Ed, that comment on Drmies's Talk page, a forum where all sorts of things are said with varying degrees of seriousness, was more me musing about INVOLVED qua policy than my questioning whether I was involved. Flyer22 can cling to the idea that I can't act at SPI when she is a "party" but it won't fly (da-da-da-boom).--Bbb23 (talk) 16:11, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
@Bbb23: I don't see why (absent a good reason) you'd continue to act in an administrator capacity with a long-standing editor who has explicitly requested you not to? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Do you know how many times users tell me I can't be impartial because of my past administrative actions against them? As for Flyer22, I barely have anything to do with her except at SPI. There are other users, not just Flyer22, who think I can't act at SPI because I've disagreed with them on past cases. SPI has a limited team and an even more limited number of CUs who patrol SPI. Any user, Flyer22 included, can approach another CU and ask if they'll intervene. I believe she did so in this instance (Alison). For the most part, CUs won't do that. Usually, another CU gets involved only if a CU asks for a second opinion. Anyway, I'm tired of talking about this. It's one thing to defend myself in something questionable, but this isn't one of those kinds of cases. You can feel free to disagree with me; that's your prerogative, but circular discussions, which are all too common at Wikipedia, are not the way I want to spend the too much time I already spend here. End of pout.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


"Thanks, Ed. It's clear Bbb23 believes that the notion that he can't act at SPI when I am a 'party' is something that 'won't fly,' while I believe that he is underestimating not only the evidence I have indicating that he, in fact, probably should not be acting in an administrative capacity regarding me, but also my ability to make a strong case against someone. After all, if he had not swooped in and saved Markshale, Markshale would be indefinitely blocked right now. The behavioral evidence was obviously strong, which is why he warned other administrators not to block Markshale regardless of how compelling they found the evidence. That said, after looking at Markshale's master account (no, Bbb23 didn't reveal it to me; nor did any other CheckUser), I believe that Bbb23 acted correctly in this case. I had neglected that there is one editor who edits like Tisane (the patterns, not just one or two patterns), despite the fact that I've interacted with this editor a number of times over the years. I didn't interact with him enough to memorize his editing style, obviously. I'm not sure why Markshale made it seem like we've interacted occasionally or that he might have interacted with me. There is no 'might have.' I will apologize on his user talk page. I will not reveal his main account, but it was easy to locate once looking for the Tisane pattern.
I will always feel that Bbb23 relies too heavily on the CheckUser tool. He does not give enough weight to behavioral evidence, which is clear by his initial response in the aforementioned case, when I noted that I wanted the case looked into further. He was ready for the case to close from the beginning, despite the fact that an 'unrelated' result does not necessarily equate to 'innocent' I've already shown above with a prime example of CheckUsers disregarding sound behavioral evidence in favor of CheckUser data (which got the matter wrong). The CheckUser tool is obviously flawed. 'Another CU get[ting] involved only if a CU asks for a second opinion'" is a crap way to go, given the examples I pointed to.
Let's face it: Some CUs simply don't like what they consider to be sockhunters or rogue sockcatchers. They want the sockcases to go through official 'trials,' and view those who don't always use the official process as disruptive and/or believe that they see themselves as being on an administrative level. To them, we are like bountyhunters working outside the law, and we must be reigned in, taught a lesson, despite the fact that we've repeatedly uncovered the worst of socks and some pretty vile socks at that. Sorry, but the only lesson I've learned from my years of catching socks is that behavioral evidence is usually everything and 'coincidences' are to be taken with a grain of salt. In most cases (and I've noted this before on my user page), I didn't really look for socks; it's usually rather that they stupidly continued to circle my orbit, daring me, as if I wouldn't recognize them. In some cases, I ignore them. I am ignoring Cali11298 these days, for example. And, for the most part, I ignore Cebr1979, who couldn't hide his writing style if his life depended on it, including his tendency to sign his username right up against his posts (meaning with no space in between). But it doesn't mean that I don't know who they are. I never thought that this IP was Markshale. I know who that IP is, and I was clear about that. I have a few persistent stalkers and I recognize them fairly easily, especially the ones with less-than-typical signature styles.
In any case, I am currently not focused on these type of things. Thanks for hearing me out." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:06, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXVI, October 2016[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 14:19, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: September 2016[edit]

This month in GLAM logo.png


Read this edition in fullSingle-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 15:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Editing News #3—2016[edit]

Read this in another languageSubscription list for this multilingual newsletterSubscribe or unsubscribe on the English Wikipedia

Did you know?

Did you know that you can easily re-arrange columns and rows in the visual editor?

Screenshot showing a dropdown menu with options for editing the table structure

Select a cell in the column or row that you want to move. Click the arrow at the start of that row or column to open the dropdown menu (shown). Choose either "Move before" or "Move after" to move the column, or "Move above" or "Move below" to move the row.

You can read and help translate the user guide, which has more information about how to use the visual editor.

Since the last newsletter, the VisualEditor Team has mainly worked on a new wikitext editor. They have also released some small features and the new map editing tool. Their workboard is available in Phabricator. You can find links to the list of work finished each week at mw:VisualEditor/Weekly triage meetings. Their current priorities are fixing bugs, releasing the 2017 wikitext editor as a beta feature, and improving language support.

Recent changes[edit]

  • You can now set text as small or big.[16]
  • Invisible templates have been shown as a puzzle icon. Now, the name of the invisible template is displayed next to the puzzle icon.[17] A similar feature will display the first part of hidden HTML comments.[18]
  • Categories are displayed at the bottom of each page. If you click on the categories, the dialog for editing categories will open.[19]
  • At many wikis, you can now add maps to pages. Go to the Insert menu and choose the "Maps" item. The Discovery department are adding more features to this area, like geoshapes. You can read more on[20]
  • The "Save" button now says "Save page" when you create a page, and "Save changes" when you change an existing page.[21] In the future, the "Save page" button will say "Publish page". This will affect both the visual and wikitext editing systems. More information is available on Meta.
  • Image galleries now use a visual mode for editing. You can see thumbnails of the images, add new files, remove unwanted images, rearrange the images by dragging and dropping, and add captions for each image. Use the "Options" tab to set the gallery's display mode, image sizes, and add a title for the gallery.[22]

Future changes[edit]

The visual editor will be offered to all editors at the remaining 10 "Phase 6" Wikipedias during the next month. The developers want to know whether typing in your language feels natural in the visual editor. Please post your comments and the language(s) that you tested at the feedback thread on This will affect several languages, including Thai, Burmese and Aramaic.

The team is working on a modern wikitext editor. The 2017 wikitext editor will look like the visual editor and be able to use the citoid service and other modern tools. This new editing system may become available as a Beta Feature on desktop devices in October 2016. You can read about this project in a general status update on the Wikimedia mailing list.

Let's work together[edit]

Do you teach new editors how to use the visual editor? Did you help set up the Citoid automatic reference feature for your wiki? Have you written or imported TemplateData for your most important citation templates? Would you be willing to help new editors and small communities with the visual editor? Please sign up for the new VisualEditor Community Taskforce.

If you aren't reading this in your preferred language, then please help us with translations! Subscribe to the Translators mailing list or contact us directly, so that we can notify you when the next issue is ready. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:18, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 October 2016[edit]

RFC/N discussion of the username "Emir of Wikipedia"[edit]

Information.svg A request for comment has been filed concerning the username of Emir of Wikipedia (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion here. —Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Pennsylvania-class battleship for TFA on December 7[edit]

I added Pennsylvania-class battleship to Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests for December 7, the 75th anniversary of the Attack on Pearl Harbor. Halgin (talk) 21:09, 22 October 2016 (UTC)