User talk:Xover/Archive 18

Ad hominem
I'm puzzled by your switch to ad hominem attacks (questioning the other editor's competence and accusing him of various negative behaviours) instead of answering a very simple question to clarify a previous statement of yours («can you please list a few examples when the bot was "used to disrupt or edit war"»). I suggest that you remove your comment. Nemo 20:05, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh please. One can't impute bad faith and ulterior motives in one sentence and in the next expect one's question to be taken as a good faith effort at mutual understanding. I know you like to see yourself as an objective and neutral interlocutor, but you may want to ask yourself why you're here complainining about ad hominem argumentation (which, incidentally, this isn't) rather than the preceding (flagrant) assumption of bad faith. After 13 years and 17k edits on the project, WP:AGF should be well ingrained and failure to even minimally adhere to it does merit some measure of sarcasm in pointing it out (note: ; the sarcasm has bite because its target can be presumed to be well familiar with the linked guidelines and policies). If  (or anyone else) wants to discuss those issues in good faith and in a constructive, collegial, and collaborative way, then I'd be happy to oblige. But as the responses from Kashmiri and AManWithNoPlan aptly demonstrate, there is absolutely no interest in that.Which is a darned shame as Wikipedia desperately needs a tool like Citation bot and I would love to be its enthusiastic cheerleader. But there is absolutely no interest in feedback (beyond simple bug reports) or discussion, and all attempts to engage are met with the mentality exhibited in the diffs above. I've therefore given up. I'll involve myself when I'm forced to, and otherwise try my best to ignore it. Which, judging by all visible signals, will suit the small group around the bot just fine. You all appear to have decided that I am the "enemy" from which you need to "defend" Citation bot. Until you manage to climb out of that hole there is no point in trying to contribute advice or opinions: you will not actually hear what I'm saying and my contributions will not be welcome. I think this insular approach will only lead to continual and escalating conflicts with the rest of the community (insularity is inherently self-reinforcing), and fear it will end up in big drama and people getting sanctioned left and right, but at this point I have no influence over that either way.Case in point, when I was pinged to the page, in a message linking to a diff where a user's IP address was leaked in the edit summary, and I took the time to point out that this was potentially very problematic, should probably be looked into quickly, and pointed to various ways of mitigation... Nobody said "Thanks, I'll look into it.", "We're aware and it's already fixed/will be fixed", "I don't understand. What do you mean?", or "We know and it's not actually a problem because...". All would have been normal and expected responses. Instead it is met with whatever this is. I'm left to wonder, do you all actually understand that violating the privacy policy is actually a big deal? Both because the privacy policy is actually there for good reasons (you may of course disagree with those reasons, but the policy is not optional), and because violating the privacy policy tends to get adverse reactions from everyone from WMF Legal, down through ArbCom, the Oversighters, and admins in general. Can I trust that the community around Citation bot actually takes control of this issue, even if just to look into it and conclude that it's not actually a problem? Or am I going to have to go trawling through Citation bot's contribs myself to figure out what it's actually doing and, if relevant, assess that against the privacy policy? Why is my pointing out that potential problem treated like it was an attack? I'm not crawling around Citation bot with a magnifying glass looking for ways of "attacking" it; I was pinged, in a message with a link to a problematic diff, and noted the potential problem and some possible ways to deal with it. In a postscript to a message on something else. Couched in caveats that I hadn't looked in detail and could be wrong. Leaving subsequent handling entirely up to those most engaged in the tool. How can you possibly construe that to be adversarial and threatening? --Xover (talk) 08:49, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . To be very clear, you first argue that the bot should remain blocked because it does not log the activating user, and then you argue that it should be blocked because it does log the activating user (or IP user). Each way, you are mounting an obstruction but somehow you still expect others to assume good faith on your part. Further, your attacks on, the person who for years singlehandedly maintained the bot, don't really help your cause; even today, in the paragraph above, you accused them of not acting in good faith. Yes you are free to be sarcastic about everything you want, but at the moment your attitude causes more damage to Wikipedia quality (by forcing a delay to bot reactivation) than the imaginary "use of the citation bot for edit warring". —  kashmīrī  TALK  11:16, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You appear to be confused. First of all, I have no control over whether or not the bot is blocked. I, and others, have raised concerns with how the bot operates, and the failure to address those concerns is why it is blocked.The current block is primarily due to adding links to copyright violations, which is against Wikipedia's policy, and which the bot's maintainers have outright refused to address. This is not an issue of particular concern to me (I'm not very familiar with CiteseerX), except to the degree that I feel it is a legitimate concern that would be best addressed rather than ignored.Secondarily it is blocked due to not identifying the Wikipedia editor triggering the edit, which the bot policy requires. This is of somewhat greater concern to me, due to its potential for abuse, and in the first diff you provide I explain how that would need to be implemented in order to meet the bot policy. These are not my demands: it is what the policy requires. I am merely explaining it so that the bot's maintainers can 1) remove that obstacle to unblocking, and 2) avoid wasting precious developer resources on implementing partial solutions that will not be sufficient to meet the policy. If they cannot, or will not, implement such measures then the bot will most likely remain blocked. But, again, not because I have any particular influence over that, but because it will not be compliant with the bot policy.But note that we're here talking about authenticating and identifying Wikipedia user name responsible for the edit. Wikipedia user names do not in any way indicate the real life identity of that user, unless that user has themselves chosen to identify themselves on their user page. The IP address of a logged in user, on the other hand, reveals information about that user's real life identity, and as such it is considered protected personal information. For example, the only ones able to see the IP address of a logged in user are the Checkusers, and they are required to sign a confidentiality agreement covering access to non-public information, and are restricted on in what circumstances they may view such information, how it may be used, and how it may (not) be divulged. Iff—and I am only going by your statement on the bot's talk page regarding that—the bot adds the IP address of a logged in user to the edit summary then it is leaking protected information in violation of the Wikimedia Foundation's (WMF) privacy policy. Iff that's the case, then that is a very serious issue that might get the blocked on its own, and which, in certain circumstances, could lead to sanctions for the bot's operators and maintainers. You appear to be readiing my notifying the maintainers of the issue as some sort of "attack" on the bot. It is not. It is simply feedback and advice, a sort of bug report, if you will.Note, of course, that the above privacy issues do not directly apply to non-logged in users. There is a big warning in the edit window for non-logged in users that editing will reveal their IP address in the edit history. It would probably be best if the bot didn't permit non-logged in users to activate it at all, and if they are permitted they should get the same warning, but they in any case do not have the same privacy protections in policy as logged in users do.Finally, you say I "attack" AManWithNoPlan and accuse them of not acting in good faith. I am at a loss as to how you draw that conclusion based on this diff. I have made no attacks upon anybody. I have several concerns with their behaviour as the de facto operator of Citation bot, some outlined above and some previously described on the bot's talk page. They boil down to not being sufficiently sensitive to the broader community's opinion, not taking feedback in a constructive manner, much less taking that feedback onboard and acting on it. --Xover (talk) 13:00, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The bot can easily be run by IP editors (once unblocked) and this was likely the case in the diff I mentioned. Thus, the triggering IP editor was recorded correctly in edit summary. Both your scream that this is a personal information leak and your WP:WALLOFTEXT above on how MediaWiki accounts work are useless. Sorry.
 * If (or anyone else) wants to discuss those issues in good faith and in a constructive, collegial, and collaborative way, then I'd be happy to oblige. But as the responses from Kashmiri and AManWithNoPlan aptly demonstrate, there is absolutely no interest in that. By writing this you are directly accusing AManWithNoPlan and me of not displaying good faith. I suggest you just stop. Neither me nor AMAnWithNoPlan are your subordinates, and the patronising attitude like the one displayed in Special:Diff/884628538 this diff is not helpful. — kashmīrī  TALK  14:48, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Your opinion has been noted. Thank you. --Xover (talk) 15:16, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, Xover, you still haven't answered the very simple question you were asked. Instead you wrote walls of text about other editors' alleged conduct, while seemingly assuming that the previous edit by Kashmiri somehow attacked you even if you were not mentioned. Nemo 16:03, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * What do you want Nemo? What is your goal here? My attempt to engage above was rebuffed, by reference, among other things, to my "walls of text" (that are, apparently not only useless, but hysterical and patronising too). Now you follow up complaining I have not answered a question in the same breath you complain about me writing "walls of text". If there is something I can help you with—some question to which you would actually value my answer—then why not simply ask it? I am, still, perfectly willing to answer any question asked in a spirit of cooperation and in good faith.PS. the last clause of your last sentence lacks at least one, and probably two, diffs to be parseable (as anything other than casting aspersions, which I would hope was not your intent). --Xover (talk) 17:04, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:Sfd
Hey, I happened to land on a template you created Sfd and had no idea what it did by the name, so had to dig around the code tree. Since the module and the name aren't the same, I'm going to probably RM this, but was wanted to make sure I understand what this does. Does this template help cite information from Folger Digital? If so, I'll probably suggest Template:Cite Folger Digital as the name. --Gonnym (talk) 13:13, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I’m on the go just now so a bit limited. I was sure I’d written docs for, but apparently not. I’ll try to get that sorted ASAP. is an analogue to : it’s for providing short inline footnotes for Shakespeare’s plays when we cite the play itself rather than a particular modern critical edition. The module has slightly wider scope. It’s intended to support multiple forms of citations to the Folger’s digital editions (e. g. first up will be supporting a template that generates a full citation for one of the plays). —Xover (talk) 13:50, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh ok. What does the "d" represent in "Sfd"? --Gonnym (talk) 13:52, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The mnemonic is Short Folger Digital. —Xover (talk) 14:54, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

You appear to make false accusations against your fellow editors
You appear to make false accusations against your fellow editors when you accuse them of edit warring, when in fact they are editing. Your accusations appear on the talk pages here and here, and in your edit comments. Making false accusations is edit warring. You also repeatedly change content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.Xover (talk) 12:20, 3 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CuthbertBurble (talk • contribs) 11:14, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * I've tried to explain what Wikipedia's policies and norms are, but you clearly take all such explanation as an attack. Placing warning messages for which there are no grounds—as you accuse me of here—is considered disruptive editing, and, as such, accusing someone of having placed such messages without grounds is itself considered a personal attack if not backed up. But as you are not inclined to listen to me, and if you actually believe you are correct, I suggest you seek assistance from administrators at WP:AN/I (a noticeboard to request administrator intervention). I will give you fair warning, what you will get from that is a warning to refrain from edit-warring, to stop making personal attacks (unfounded accusations), and to better familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies and expectations for contributors (i.e. the same things I have adviced you of). The complete edit history of all editors and all articles is there to be scrutinized, so your accusations that I have acted improperly can be thoroughly checked.Please also note that as you have forcefully indicated that my advice and explanations are unwelcome I will for the future refrain from such on your user talk page. That, sadly, only leaves me the option of using warning templates (which you seem to dislike) when you have or are at risk of violating policy, and with escalation to some relevant noticeboard if the warning templates are insufficient. I would generally much prefer to actually discuss such matters in a civil fashion, but when such are unwelcome on your talk page you leave me few other options. Please note that I am always happy to discuss, and to explain my reasoning, but for there to be any purpose to that it requires that you assume sufficient good faith that you actually believe me when I tell you what our policies are. --Xover (talk) 12:55, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--— xaosflux  Talk 18:51, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The section is Administrators'_noticeboard. — xaosflux  Talk 18:51, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Out of the blue
... because sometimes words don't work, but images may ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You are an absolute and unequivocal treasure! That was just exactly what I needed today. Thank you! And what a lovely photo too. Your own? It makes me feel like just laying down in that grass—I can just smell the grass and flowers, feel the dewy dampness—and look up at those pretty little cottonball clouds drifting across the pale blue sky. I can practically hear the buzzing insects and distant cries of birds… --Xover (talk) 19:32, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, love it, every word! Beware of ants, though ;) - Yes, mine. Just walked there, 3 minutes from where I live, the cornflowers just starting. Click on June, and look for the calendar images (above the playlist). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:36, 5 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Gerda! I had no idea you were so multi-talented! I was tempted by my unceasing curiosity to go spelunking through your Commons uploads, and my oh my what a gold mine! So many wonderful landscape and nature photographs; but, as was perhaps inevitable, I was particularly fascinated with the one on the side here. Lessing's work there is practically Pre-Raphaelite (not that I am any judge of art, mind)! It makes me itch to visit Weimar with some studio lighting and a hideously expensive lens. :) --Xover (talk) 11:09, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Weimar is worth many visits! Thank you. For the 2019 images, just click June and go up and down. Most in the playlist not taken by me, mind. A cover like the one for the Brahms motets speaks volumes of love for the music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Snap, snap
Can you find something more Oxfordian to support this? It's a good one and I want to keep it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look when I have spare cycles. Onwiki I'm a bit overwhelmed drinking from the dramahose right now, and busy IRL just for good measure. A quick scan suggests I may be able to demonstrate sufficient notability for inclusion, but not necessarily to verify the claims in the entry. But I'll see what I can dig up (maybe some time this weekend, depending on whether a certain unnamed charitable foundation manages to pour something other than jet fuel on the latest dumpster fire). --Xover (talk) 18:35, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That is some drama, isn't it? Measured in text/h I can't remember a more intense one. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:06, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I can't either, and I was there for some of the most spectacular clashes. Which is disheartening because it seems the WMF is incapable of learning: every one of them was predictable and avoidable. There are so many other ways this current issue could have been handled that would not have led to this state of affairs, and most of them eminently obvious from those previous occasions when the WMF has done their "blind elephant with diahrrea" act in our common china shop. This one has me scared that the necessary trust between the WMF and the community will be fatally wounded. If the WMF doesn't realize it needs to start deescalating and communicating, this could really spiral out of control. The community has had their defiant gesture(s), so I'm just praying the WMF won't do something dumb like stand on principle and stonewall. --Xover (talk) 19:28, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe we'll have some interesting update today. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:50, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The announced WMFOffice statement at AR/C may be telling. Will they continue the tactic of deliberate deescalation by recommending ArbCom decline the case, or at least to not sanction the named parties? Will they undermine themselves by apologizing that we are so confused and make dire warnings about their response if anyone in the future overturns Office actions? Will they actively shoot themselves in the foot by asserting in some fashion that ArbCom lacks jurisdiction or ability? A lot of things can go wrong there, and it'll take a lot of effort to make it go right (or as right as can be hoped for under the circumstances).But I am encouraged by Jimbo's statement earlier today: it hits it square in the mark and he still has a lot of influence at the WMF (more so than he has with the community at enwp, I would think, oddly enough). If we have Jimbo and Doc James arguing along that tack, and along the lines of Risker's wonderfully eloquent and apposite statement at the Community response page, I think there's a chance we could get something productive out of the Board meeting later today.But I worry that the focus of the discussion will be specifically on the individual banned editor, and that discussion can only turn out one way: T&S provides a long series of diffs that look horribly incriminating out of context and frame their summary as a typical harasser—victim narrative, and then anyone that don't immediately fall over themselves to demonize the "harasser" will be shunned and ignored (And, just to note for the record, in the way that someone who knowingly protects an actual harasser should be shunned and ignored. I am very deliberately not taking any kind of stance on the banned editor's conduct! I'm saying that that's what will happen in those circumstances regardless of the truth or falsity of the accusation.) T&S will be the only ones in that room with any actual ability to present evidence, so no nuance or context is possible. And the ban itself and whether or not it is deserved is a sideshow here: what actually matters are the broader issues of communication, governance, where the lines are between the foundation and the community, and what the interfaces between them are. If we can't figure those out the project may well be doomed, and if we do then what to do about the individual(s) involved will follow on from that.What I wouldn't give to be in that room!I'm trying to sort out my own thoughts on this mess (Risker covered about half of my thoughts, and probably much better than I could have), so do feel free to share your own thoughts on it here (you too ; don't think I haven't noticed your comments various places! ;)). Be warned, I reserve the right to steal shamelessly from the SmartPeople™! --Xover (talk) 09:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It is now way to much text for me to try take it all in. Currently I check Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram/Summary for updates, and the WIR thing didn't make it a lot better. My knee-jerk reaction is in the I-want-to-know-everything-he's-accused-of-with-diffs-of-him-doing-it direction, but things are not that easy. But it's hard to take the no-not-gonna-tell-you-what-he-did-to-whom-approach, that goes very counter to the WP-spirit.


 * So, let's relax with something more understandable, shall we? "Pausing here to acknowledge that this is all highly meta: a discussion taking place on Wikipedia about whether Wikipedia should include information within that subject’s Wikipedia article about how that subject covertly and unethically edited Wikipedia. (Taking it a step further, there’s a relatively high possibility that the very article you are reading will at some point be cited on Wikipedia since this is usually the case with Slate and other outlets that have covered the site.)" I wouldn't mind reading something by him on the Fram-case. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, tell me about it. Today was a lot calmer then the last couple, but it still took me two hours just to skim through the latest changes on my watchlist. At least there seems to be a lot less pitchforks and torches now, with some good and constructive discussions happening within the community about broader issues. Not so much between the community and WMF, but it's better than the trench warware that was the status quo just two days ago. --Xover (talk) 07:59, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Meh. I'm going to have to throw in the towel on this one. I can cite Wednesday and Pugsley staging the duel scene in grand guignol style at a school show in one episode, but I can't find anything tying Ophelia to Ophelia. --Xover (talk) 08:21, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for trying! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:26, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram looked sensible to me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:34, 18 June 2019 (UTC)