User talk:Tom29739/Archive 14

Tech News: 2016-30
 Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes
 * Interactive maps have been enabled for Meta wiki and the Catalan, Hebrew, and Macedonian Wikipedias. Learn how to add interactive maps to wiki pages.
 * Octicons-tools.svg Last week's rollback is now documented.

Problems
 * Sometimes, the visual editor required saving twice. That problem is now fixed.

Changes this week
 * Octicons-sync.svg The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 26 July. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 27 July. It will be on all wikis from 28 July (calendar).
 * It is now possible to mark all Notifications as read on Special:Notifications, by clicking on the cog icon.
 * Wikipedia search will now detect the language of your search if 2 or fewer results are found. It will then show results from the matching language Wikipedia, if any relevant article exists. It will start to roll out in 5 languages.

Meetings
 * Octicons-sync.svg You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 26 July at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.
 * Octicons-tools.svg You can join the next meeting with the Architecture committee. The topic this week is "an extension that implements an authenticated key-value store". The meeting will be on 27 July at 21:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes
 * The current icon for Notifications "" (in English "Notices") will be changed from a bubble-speech icon to a tray icon for consistency.
 * Special:Notifications page code will be changed to be more Mobile friendly.

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.  19:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Theresa May
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Theresa May. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Unblock
The Arbitration Committee has granted your block appeal, and I have now unblocked your account. I would like to note publicly that although this block was due to overlap with another account and a legitimate block, this was not an "admission of guilt" variety of appeal, but rather based on some lack of certainty that the evidence was sufficient to come to a definitive sockpuppetry conclusion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you for the details in this unblock notice and the information you, , and have offered in this complex case.  I feel there are larger implications here, so I'm hoping you are willing to entertain a little more discussion on the matter.


 * I think there is some confusion between the statement that this was "a legitimate block", and also "[unblock]...based on some lack of certainty that the evidence was sufficient...", can you speak to that confusion at all? I feel that Tom is a constructive and enthusiastic contributor and believe a more clear statement would serve to encourage and clear the air.


 * It is my personal opinion that it took too long to overturn this block, could you clarify the circumstances that led to the delay? I am concerned about the confusion regarding appeal venues, and the need for a full appeal to ArbCom which seems to have contributed to the delay.  I fear that with the complications arising in this case, if Tom (and others) hadn't been persistent, the block would have simply expired and remained on his record indefinitely.  I feel that a small group of CU-level folks could have processed the appeal more quickly.  Also, I'm concerned about Mike V's reluctance to overturn the block himself.


 * In summary, I'm simply looking for clarification about the unblock notice and the appeal process for CU blocks. I truly appreciate your time and efforts on this. Waggie (talk) 10:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * (To be clear, this is all in my personal capacity and not as an Arbitrator) I can't say specifically what GorillaWarfare was getting at in her original statement regarding the legitimate block part, but I have a feeling that you two are talking about two different things, one being Tom's block and one being another block which I can't go into detail about specifically. That's my interpretation at least.
 * While I agree this appeal was not processed in a optimal time due to technical issues on my end and confusion about the venue, I do not feel a small group of CU folks would have been faster on this appeal. When Checkusers discuss blocks it usually goes into great detail about technical and behavioral evidence. While ArbCom still reviews it, I hold the opinion that Checkusers (active ones, whether ArbCom or not) review it more carefully as they make difficult decisions regarding the data more often than ArbCom does in general. It drives home the point, mentality, for me at least, that I don't want to make mistakes in what I do an cause an innocent block. The reason this block was overturned was on lack of certainty on a combination of CU results and non-public behavioral data. It wasn't a matter of letting an established harmful person back onto the wiki, so it's easier to assume good faith under the conditions of uncertainty in the evidence when dealing with an appeal than it is when making the block. On a side note, there were actually two active appeal processes running: One with the checkuser and consultation with other CUs and then there was the appeal to ArbCom. ArbCom came to a stronger conclusion faster this time. I still do think though that a group of CUs can review it without need a escalation to a full committee at ArbCom.
 * Venues, miscommunications (on behalf of multiple parties), and case complexity were the primary factors for a cause in delay with this appeal. That said, ArbCom appeals generally can take a fair bit longer than this depending on the circumstances. For long term and/or established users it's definitely in the best interest of all if appeals are handled more quickly though out of respect for their contributions. I think we endeavor to do so with such appeals.
 * If the block expires before successful appeal, and the appeal would have been successful, I've seen administrators issue a one second block making a statement to that effect, which nullifies the "black mark". Also, I don't know if this helps, but Tom at a point in the appeals process was given the relevant information as to what showed up in checkuser causing his block, something not normally afforded to blocked users. Either way, the unblock makes that redundant.
 * Mike V's reluctance comes from a balance between certainty and AGF. It comes down to a judgement call each time, and different people will make different calls. If I was as certain as Mike V was in this case, and I made the block, I would also be reluctant to overturn it. I had an incident back a while ago (that's quite public) where I was certain a serial sockmaster has created a load of accounts. I was completely convinced. I wouldn't have overturned the blocks. But I didn't have all the information at hand in front of me. When the appropriate information came to light, then I was absolutely willing to cause I had realized my error. In this case there was no new evidence, data or information, it was purely just a judgement call.
 * None of us want to see a good user blocked, and Tom I personally apologize for my role in the delay of your appeal. I understand it's hard being blocked and thank you for your patience with us throughout the (broken) appeals process. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 11:30, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow, thank you very much for your response, ! This clears up matters for me, considerably, I hope it does for other folks, too.  I have one question remaining then, you say "I still do think though that a group of CUs can review it without need a escalation to a full committee at ArbCom."  From my understanding of the appeals process, this isn't a process currently in place.  What would one do if they wanted a process like this in place? Waggie (talk) 17:51, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that detailed response, DeltaQuad! My clarification here was a proactive attempt to clear up two potential misunderstandings. I wanted to clarify that the Arbitration Committee did not overturn Mike V's block because of some abuse of his CheckUser privileges (that would be on the ombudsmen anyway) or because we felt he was mistaken in placing this block. We also did not overturn the block based on some admission by Tom29739 that he had socked or otherwise broken policy.


 * CheckUsers have to make judgment calls based on the evidence available to them, both behavioral and technical. There is often quite a lot of ambiguity involved in CheckUser cases, and it's up to the CUs to decide whether the evidence available suggests that a user is in violation of policy. In this particular case, there was considerable concern that Tom29739 was socking, editing while logged out, and evading a block. However, upon Tom's appeal, the Arbitration Commitee decided that we were not 100% certain that the evidence pointed to Tom being behind this disruption he was connected to. Speaking for myself only, I generally prefer to mistakenly unblock a user who is actually disrupting than to mistakenly keep an innocent user blocked. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-31
 Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes
 * A prototype for structured data on Commons is available now.
 * The RevisionSlider beta feature can now be tested on mediawiki.org, German Wikipedia, Arabic Wikipedia and Hebrew Wikipedia.

Problems
 * Renamed users on some wikis were not connected to their account on other wikis between 20 July and 21 July. This has been fixed.

Changes this week
 * Octicons-sync.svg The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 2 August. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 3 August. It will be on all wikis from 4 August (calendar).

Meetings
 * Octicons-sync.svg You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 2 August at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.
 * The next CREDIT showcase will be on 3 August at 18:00 (UTC). This is to present and comment on new gadgets, small projects and works in progress. See how to join.
 * Octicons-tools.svg You can join the next meeting with the Architecture committee. The topic this week is "notifications in core". The meeting will be on 3 August at 21:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.  21:48, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:43, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 August 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXIV, August 2016
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-32
 Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes
 * In notifications, the icon for has been changed from a speech-bubble icon (Echo chat icon.svg) to a tray icon (OOjs UI icon tray.svg) for consistency. The  icon has been redesigned too. The colors have been changed for accessibility.

Problems
 * If you use the wikEd gadget, changes you made were not kept when you switched from the wikitext editor to the visual editor while you were editing. This has now been fixed.

Changes this week
 * Wikimedia search will now ignore question marks at the end of the sentences or words you use when you search. Until now the question mark was just a wildcard.
 * On Commons, UploadWizard will now be available on mobile, rather than just the old upload form. This should reduce the workload for the community in reviewing images.
 * When you edit with the visual editor a puzzle symbol tells you there is an invisible template in the article. It will now mention the name of the template.
 * The button to read something in another language will move for mobile users. This will happen on 9 August.
 * When someone mentions you and links to your user page you get a notification. You will now get a notification when you mention yourself this way.
 * Octicons-sync.svg The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 9 August. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 10 August. It will be on all wikis from 11 August (calendar).
 * A message on Notifications panel will invite users to try Special:Notifications page.

Meetings
 * Octicons-sync.svg You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on August 9 at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.  15:41, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 13 August 2016 (UTC)