User talk:Levivich - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Levivich (talk | contribs) at 22:35, 1 October 2019 (→Your comments: Replying to GorillaWarfare (using reply-link)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 22:35, 1 October 2019 by Levivich (talk | contribs) (→Your comments: Replying to GorillaWarfare (using reply-link))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Transparency

Somebody told me that your account seems to have been unnaturally wise about Misplaced Pages process within making a small number of editors. I agreed that it was a sign that you might have had a previous account and then pointed out that this is not necessarily evidence of sock puppetry because people can make new accounts, as long as the old ones weren't subject to any sanctions, etc. The purpose of telling you is that you will know people can make inferences from your edit history and you might want to make some sort of declaration on your user page if appropriate. You can also make a private declaration to ArbCom or a functionary to prevent any such inference from ever leading to a finding of sock puppetry. Happy editing. Jehochman 23:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Jehochman, who was it that told you that? – Leviv ich 23:42, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I'd have to get their permission to release their identity. Are you glad I gave you this information, or would you rather I kept it from you? Jehochman 23:46, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Checking my records, it was somebody I do not remember ever corresponding with before, and it was not anybody who participated in the thread today or yesterday. In sum, somebody completely random as far as I could tell. It did seem strange to me to get a message from the out of the blue. If you want to blank this conversation and move to email, we can do that. Jehochman 23:50, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I'd rather keep this on wiki (sunlight is the best disinfectant), and yes, I would appreciate it if you could get their permission to release their identity. Thank you. – Leviv ich 00:00, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

You’re handling this quite skillfully, I must say. E Eng 08:58, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I’ve asked. Maybe they’ll answer or maybe they’ll reveal themselves here. Jehochman 00:13, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Levivich, Jehochman's been posting these friendly-head's-up-but-you-don't-have-to-answer questions recently . He went to Yale so I suggest you just ignore him. E Eng 00:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Disregard EEng. He seems to fancy himself too much because he went to Harvard. Jehochman 01:00, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh please. Your mascot's ugly and licks Harvard's boots. E Eng 01:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

This state school kid is having a hard time deciding who to root for here. – Leviv ich 02:39, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

My son goes to Berkeley. It’s way more challenging than Yale or Harvard. Jehochman 02:52, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I went to Berkeley as well, and even taught there. Good try, though. E Eng 08:36, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Which department? Jehochman 08:47, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Statistics. E Eng 08:56, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

You being a statistician explains so, so much to this pure mathematician. Triptothecottage (talk) 10:53, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

If you had said you had taught at Berklee, I would have been impressed. All the best parties are thrown by Berklee and SMFA kids. That's where you can meet the Cambridge horns/bicycle people. (At least that was true before SMFA merged with Tufts. Not sure about these days.) – Leviv ich 13:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh dear, EEng, I didn't know you had such a severe case. It may require several evenings at Mory's to cure your condition (p=0.005). Jehochman 14:38, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

... wherever that may be. E Eng 01:16, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

References

Well, TA anyway.

Rollback granted

Hi Levivich. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
Rollback should never be used to edit war.
If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Beeblebrox (talk) 17:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Don't call it a rollback, it's been status quo for years. I'm rockin' my peers, puttin' vandals in fear... Thanks, Beeblebrox! ~~This will give me a great speed advantage in edit wars~~ I look forward to more effectively combating vandalism through responsible, policy-compliant use of this tool. – Leviv ich 17:53, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Pssst...it's actually safer to use Twinkle because it (1) it's legal and (2) allows you to add an edit summary regardless of the device you're using. Gadgets in preferences provides confirmation under Browsing but only on mobile devices. J/S _Talk 📧 01:50, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@Atsme: I just noticed this! Actually I only wanted the rollback perm so I could use Huggle. The actual Rollback button scares the crap out of me. Although, the one-click-restore script (which works off of Twinkle and doesn't require RB perm) is essentially the same thing, equally frightening. Especially on mobile. I'm amazed I've almost gone a week without fat fingering rollback, but it's only a matter of time. I heard there's a script that removes the button; I may look into that. – Leviv ich 14:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Let me know when/if you find it. I actually used RB once thinking it was ok because it was BLP vio but I was taken to task over it...but if my memory serves, I also noted on that editor's TP why I used it. From that day forward, I've used Twinkle RB. I'm hard pressed to find any difference in the two. _Talk 📧 14:59, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Let me know if you have any questions about Huggle. I'm pretty familiar with it, but personally, I don't enjoy using it - Hugglers are a vital first wall of defense, and I am always grateful for their efforts, but I find the time pressure on making decisions somewhat stressful - if you dither too long looking at an edit someone else will revert it, but personally I like to take my time and be sure before hitting the all-too-easy shortcut key. If you find that you share that feeling, I'd recommend Stiki - similar interface, but it mops up the stuff the Hugglers miss. I've found blatant, egregious BLP violations that have survivedin article space for over a month in the past with Stiki - it has a long memory. My 2p worth anyway. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:35, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll have you know I hold the esteemed rank of #368 on the All-Time Stiki World Championship Leaderboard... just a few behind you, Girth (#83). I've enjoyed Huggle's extra filters and features, but I have had the time pressure experience that you describe. It's still kind of a shiny new toy so I'll keep messing with it, but I have the feeling I might move back to Stiki in the end. But then what I am I going to do with my beautiful purple rollback perm? – Leviv ich 20:35, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Levivich, sorry, I'd missed that! I still log into Huggle every now and again, just to keep my hand in, and to stop my rollback gears seizing... GirthSummit _(blether) 06:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Haha, no apologies necessary, at #368, I haven't quite made the cut. – Leviv ich 14:28, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Brian Kemp edit

I'm stumped as to how you could possibly find an issue with my edit to resolve the dispute. The source I used was completely relevant to solving the issue of proper terminology, but if you'd like, I'll find a different source with different, objective terminology that relates to Brian Kemp and remove the original CNN source. Again, Misplaced Pages has a neutrality policy (WP:NPOV) and the term "assault-style" is a completely subjective term. Also, I feel obligated to let you know that you misused Twinkle to revert my edit, seeing as how it's a rollback function and it's specifically to be used to revert cases of vandalism.--MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 21:30, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

This confuses everybody, but the Twinkle function called "rollback" isn't the same as the "rollback" that requires the rollback permission (which is the kind that's only for vandalism). In this case, I used Twinkle's "Restore" function to restore a prior version, with an edit summary explaining why.On the merits, you are still fundamentally approaching this incorrectly. It is not our job to "solve the issue of proper terminology". It is not our job to use "objective" rather than "subjective" terms. If sources describe a rifle as an "assault-style" rifle, then that is the terminology we must use. To insert a different term would be misrepresenting the source. If you think that the source cited is using the "incorrect" term, you need to find other independent, reliable secondary sources that describe that particular rifle (not an AR-15 in general, but the very rifle that Brian Kemp is holding in that picture). If you find such sources, post them at the article talk page and see if there's consensus to make a change. Does that all make sense? – Leviv ich 21:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	For doing the heavy lifting, and getting another Scottish building off the 'to do' list! GirthSummit _(blether) 11:54, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, GS! I'm not sure I did the heavy lifting, though, but it was a fun collaboration! – Leviv ich 14:14, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Levivich, you certainly did - most of the text is yours, you found all the images, and even in the external description bit I just joined the dots after you'd identified the relevant stuff from the sources. Glad you enjoyed it anyway - if you fancy doing it again some time, let me know. Cheers

Ooh - we got rated B class - pretty good result, my articles mostly get C class on first publication, we must have done something right. I think that with a bit of pernickety fiddling about this would probably get through a GA review - if I do the fiddly stuff first, would you like to nominate and lead the review? I'd watch and assist of course. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:46, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Sure I'd love to! On that subject, what do you think about a DYK about the door being a war memorial? (It's a non-US hook, with images available... though not of the war memorial unfortunately.) – Leviv ich 20:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I think that would work. I was trying to think about whether there's anything hooky enough for a DYK, and the unusual war memorial door is probably the best bet. Re-reading it just now, and comparing it with the source, it might be worth going over that bit again just to do a bit more paraphrasing - some of the phrasing is perhaps a bit too similar to the source for comfort, that might raise an eyebrow during the scrutiny of a DYK review. I'll check again to see whether any of my offline sources have anything about that bit, and see if I can alter it a bit tonight. GirthSummit _(blether) 06:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

OK - I've been through gradually removing stuff that Earwig threw up as copyvio - it's down below 25% grumpiness now, and most of the remaining stuff is directly attributed quotes, so it's probably good to go. It might be worth expanding the lead a bit, perhaps including the memorials like the sacrament house and the door memorial - especially if we're going with that for the hook - do you want to have a look at doing that? GirthSummit _(blether) 18:05, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Girth Summit, thanks for the copyediting! Sure, I'll take a stab at the lead (and also updating the organ bit), might not get a chance until tomorrow though. – Leviv ich 00:02, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: I made some more tweaks and got it down to 20%, and expanded the lead. Feel free to modify. Let me know what you think. – Leviv ich 19:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Levivich, excellent - particularly 'lies' instead of 'extends' - I was really struggling to think of an alternative way of putting that. Do you want to put the DYK in now? I think that it's also ready to nominate for GA, but I'd suggest doing one at a time rather than having two reviews on the go concurrently. GirthSummit _(blether) 06:32, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Reason #31 why Girth Summit should be an admin: The word "lie" is not in his vocabulary.

I agree on both points; I'll fire off the DYK nom now, and we can send it to GA afterwards. – Leviv ich 14:32, 25 September 2019 (UTC) Update:

Done Template:Did you know nominations/St Rufus Church – Leviv ich 15:40, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

LOL - you got me! DYK nom looks good - I've found before that the DYK reviews can help identify stuff that would have needed to be picked up in a GA review anyway, so that's probably the right order to do things in. With regard to the other thing... Tony et al have been quite persuasive, keep an eye on your watchlist next month. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 17:46, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

That's great to hear! I'm happy to give you the friends and family discount rate:

LEVIVICH'S RFA RATES (DISCOUNTED)
Support ...................... 1 page protected in my preferred version (1 week)
Strong support ............... 1 editor of my choosing blocked (1 week)
Vocal support (250+ words) ... 1 PERM
Harassing oppose !voters ..... 1 accepted {{unblock}} request (per oppose !voter)

You can email me your order at your convenience. 1% bump guaranteed! – Leviv ich 18:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Levivich, hmm... not sure about any of them, but how does unlimited shortbread sound? While writing Aberlour House (building), I approached Walkers Shortbread to get them to donate a few photographs to illustrate the article - I'm on pretty friendly terms with their marketing coordinator now, I reckon I could pull some strings... GirthSummit _(blether) 20:08, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Throw in some decent tea and you've got yourself a deal. – Leviv ich 01:47, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Your comments on AN/I

I have asked you to strike your comments concerning me on AN/I as violations of WP:NPA and WP:Casting aspersions. Should you chose not to, I will be filing a report at AN/I requesting that you be blocked for those violations. Thank you for taking care of this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I've responded to you in the ANI thread. I'll strike "Avoid sounding like a Nazi" when you strike the parts where you called editors "cancers...eating away at us from inside", "Whatever good you may do is nothing compared to the effects of the disease you represent", "the only solution...is to get rid of them", "Misplaced Pages must protect itself to survive", and other Themes in Nazi propaganda. – Leviv ich 01:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

BMK, I think Levivich's followup at ANI makes his intent clear. You're two of my favorite colleagues, so please let's not have a thing. E Eng 01:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
EEng is right. Leviv and BMK, I have a lot of respect for both of you and think you're both great contributors. I'd hate to see y'all build a grudge. Drop the issue, and watch what you say. Captain Eek ⚓ 02:14, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
TBH I don't want to fight with BMK, either. That one particular post really got under my skin. Having made my POINTy point, I'm happy to move and go find something else to do. – Leviv ich 02:31, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Levivich: I don't use the "thanks" system, so in response to your "thank you", you're welcome. I hope we can put this behind us. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

BTW, someone should probably collapse it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:28, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

And so collapsed. Captain Eek ⚓ 05:08, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

And they lived happily ever after. E Eng 14:46, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks EEng and Eek, for well-needed bucket of cold water. – Leviv ich 00:04, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

DYK nomination of St Rufus Church

Hello! Your submission of St Rufus Church at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Ergo Sum 04:45, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks from The Signpost

You definitely had the best quote in the story. And the shortest, which is how these things often turn out. If you'd like to submit something longer for next month, just let me know. I've got to hurry back to that page to see if a reenactment is breaking out. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:41, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Although I have to dispute your use of the term "thought leader"... I can barely keep my thoughts together, never mind leading them anywhere. Anyway, looks like a pretty good discussion starting there in the comments section. Congrats on another issue "in print"! – Leviv ich 19:00, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Your comments

This is now twice today that I've had to suppress comments of yours; the first when you directed people towards off-wiki harassment of Wikipedians, and now when you've linked to an off-wiki account that has not been self-disclosed. Please put a lot more thought into your comments on this subject going forward; my patience is running thin and I will absolutely place a block if I need to suppress your comments again. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:35, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, please don’t be pedantic, that account was self disclosed, and has been for years. On top of the username being the same. And you know this because you also post there. And I was linking to an editor’s comment about me. I’m glad you take off wiki comments about me as seriously as you take off wiki comments about others. – Leviv ich 20:13, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

The rule is that it must be disclosed by the Wikipedian on Misplaced Pages, as it always has been. As far as I'm aware, that is not the case with the account you linked. This isn't pedantry, it's a long-standing portion of the WP:OUTING policy. If you have concerns about off-wiki harassment, by all means please contact the Arbitration Committee via email and ask us to look into them. But it's not okay to out people on-wiki. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:16, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Let's back up a second, GW. You say "This is now twice today that I've had to suppress comments of yours", but the first time, I did absolutely nothing wrong. I mentioned the name of an off-wiki account that was linked to at ANI for over a week. Somebody (I guess you?) just revdelled or suppressed (I can't tell the difference) ~1,250 diffs from ANI after I made my post. The fact that this information was on a very heavily trafficked ANI thread, yet no editor or admin-not even the closer–revdel'd it or otherwise said anything was wrong with it–that completely absolves me of any wrongdoing by mentioning the name of it. You must admit there was no way in hell I could possibly have known that there would be anything wrong with naming it. 1,250 is a shitload of diffs! I would have preferred if you had responded with something like "This should have been suppressed a while ago, thanks for bringing it to my attention, Levivich." On the other hand, maybe it shouldn't have been suppressed? Maybe that's why no one else said anything about it? In any event, please don't claim this is some kind of "strike one" against me–I did nothing wrong by posting it. And, if it wasn't for me bringing it up, you wouldn't have even known about it, and it would still be out there, unsuppressed.Now onto the second time you suppressed a post of mine. You say, "As far as I'm aware, that is not the case", but you weren't aware of the "something" having been posted at ANI until I mentioned it, so what makes you think you are aware of whether or not "Editor X"'s account was self-disclosed on-wiki? I know you're an intelligent person with nothing but good intentions, but have you really not considered the possibility that you're wrong in this instance? I'm well aware of the OUTING policy, and I'm not one to ignore policy or not care about privacy issues. Ask me for the diff where, years ago, "Editor X" admitted to having an account at "that" website (which is still used to this day, with the same username). I'm not going to post it unless I have your permission, so that I don't get into "surprise trouble" again with another post. Then I'll ask you to please put my post back. – Leviv ich 21:04, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Um, or option 3, the internet being a place where things change over time, at the time of the post on ANI the link did not contain things that violate the outing policy and it does now? I get youre upset that a friend of yours has been blocked, but I thought you were opposed to harassment? nableezy - 21:11, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

You know what, Nableezy, you're right, that could be a third option. If that were true, I'd have thought GW would have said that ("Well, Levivich, it wasn't harassment when it was originally posted, but due to more-recent posts, it now is."). Looking through, um, "that thing" that I cannot name, to the extent that there is doxxing there (which is harassment, and which I am very much against), the doxxing was already there from a week ago. So that kind of pokes holes in the theory of late-developing harassment. Also, doxxing happens at certain other websites, ones where GW and many other editors participate, but we don't suppress mentions of Wikipediocracy. I remember reading a thread like "I'd pay good money to doxx Fram", but that's apparently no big deal here. Bottom line is: I'm not fan of "that thing", but I do not believe there is sufficient evidence (like matching IPs) to say Icewhiz is behind it. It's impossible to rule out a joe job. Now, I'd ask you a similar question, Nab: I thought you were against editors being sitebanned based on secret evidence? – Leviv ich 21:21, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Youve said that this is similar to T&S and the FRAMBAN multiple times now, and each time you have missed a kind of crucial distinction. Now I was not around when ArbCom was first created, so I cant speak to the entire history here, but as long as I have been here, and consequently as long as you have, one of ArbCom's roles has always been to resolve matters unsuitable for public discussion for privacy, legal, or similar reasons. There are times where "secret" evidence, meaning evidence not presented to the general editor community, will have to be used. Off-site harassment being one obvious example. And ArbCom has always been the body that we elected to deal with those issues. The FRAMBAN however was instituted by a body that we had no say in picking or ability to remove in some future election. We, the Misplaced Pages community, have agreed that ArbCom however, being a body from us and elected by us, can indeed take "secret" evidence in to account and can indeed ban editors on its basis. Beyond that, another obvious difference here is that your pal was actually, apparently, confronted by the committee about this. It was not a secret to him what this ban is based on. Finally, there is at least one post involving outing from within the last couple days there. So, if you think this is going to be the winning argument feel free to continue making it, but no, this is not in any way analogous to an unelected body imposing their will upon us (the FRAMBAN). nableezy - 21:31, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't think it absolves you—someone was engaged in off-wiki harassment severe enough to warrant an ArbCom block, how on earth would it be a good idea to start posting links to places where harassment was occurring going "is this it?" But I do appreciate you bringing it to my attention (albeit via a roundabout way -- in the future, if you think there is harassment that should have been suppressed, an email to the oversight team is the way to report it).

On the other hand, maybe it shouldn't have been suppressed? Maybe that's why no one else said anything about it? It was indeed me who suppressed it, and given how large a suppression it was, I immediately brought it to the attention of the entire oversight team via our email list in case people disagreed with the action. This isn't some sneaky action on my part, and I'm sure the OS team will speak up if they think I've overstepped. So far no one has.

You say, "As far as I'm aware, that is not the case", but you weren't aware of the "something" having been posted at ANI until I mentioned it, so what makes you think you are aware of whether or not "Editor X"'s account was self-disclosed on-wiki? I know you're an intelligent person with nothing but good intentions, but have you really not considered the possibility that you're wrong in this instance? It is the responsibility of the poster to show that they are not violating the WP:OUTING policy. We err on the side of caution for what I assume are obvious reasons. If the link has been made on-wiki by a user to their account on this offwiki site and I was mistaken in suppressing the edit, please do provide the link and I will undo the suppression. If it was on-wiki, there should be no issue with you posting the diff.

As for Wikipediocracy, WP:BADSITES is sort of a perennial proposal, and has never reached much agreement among the community. Definitely feel free to start a new discussion about it if you like, but as far as I'm aware links to Wikipediocracy are not verboten (unless the thread itself being linked contains outing or harassment), nor is participation there. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:41, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

how on earth would it be a good idea to start posting links to places where harassment was occurring going "is this it?" That's not what I did. I didn't post a link, and I didn't say "is this it?", or ask anything like that. I said, "how do they know that this is him and not me" (or something like that), and I was right, you (Arbcom) don't know that–can't know it. I didn't ask "is this it?" because I already knew it was–that was obvious just based on which arbs abstained from the vote. How on earth would I think it would be acceptable? Because it sat on ANI for a week through 1,200 revisions in a thread with lots of admin attention... so yeah, I thought it was OK to talk about. Just like Wikipediocracy is OK to talk about, even though a lot of harassment goes on there. Do you really, genuinely, not understand why I would think it was OK, given that it sat at ANI for a week through 1,200 edits? (Digging out the diffs of self-outing now...) – Leviv ich 22:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

As I've said, the difference between linking and naming in this scenario is trivial. Regardless, it seems we are now clear that you should not do that again, which is the key piece of this conversation. I'll keep this page on my watchlist in case you find the disclosure of the account. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:09, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I can't believe you're too stubborn to admit that it was reasonable for me to believe it was OK to name something that had been linked to at ANI for a week. That's really disappointing. Keep this page on your watchlist; it's more than one diff. I have over 100 to go through to bring you the choice ones. – Leviv ich 22:35, 1 October 2019 (UTC)