User talk:Ahnoneemoos/Archives/2013/October

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Thank you

Thank you for your edits on the "History of women of Puerto Rico" article. They are truly appreciated. The re-naming of the title from "Women in Puerto Rico" to it's current title was perfect and what I was looking for. Tony the Marine (talk) 18:42, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to you Tony! I think we have a remarkable chance to make this article a WP:GOODARTICLE. Let's keep working together to elevate it to such status. What do you say? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 00:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

What do I say? Absolutely! Since you made a GA nomination, I decided to make a temp. removal of the citation tag which may hinder said nom. Tony the Marine (talk) 00:39, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Mayoralty_in_Puerto_Rico

I really must protest at the way you are handling this page. You do not own this article. Every time anyone makes an input, you dismiss it as an opinion (e.g. [[1]]) and yet you feel entitled to state your opinions as fact here [[2]]. Just because I have come to a different conclusion to you, it doesn't mean I am unfamiliar with policies. To make this kind of an assertion without evidence is a WP:Personal attack.
In any case, it is you who is not reading or understanding the policies. To make it worse, you are the one that is not familiar with policies. You even have a link on your user page, the relevant policy is ignore all rules. When you have calmed down, removed this attack and started to treat me like a human being then I will try and explain why, but at present I am sick of the ascription to me of views that I do not hold followed by a personal attack.
You raise examples of other articles to support your view [[3]] and then when I refuted your claim that these examples support your view, you accuse me of WP:OSE[[4]].
You acuse me of making changes to your comments when I have done no such thing and yet you have changed my comments : [[5]] I don't know what passes for civilised language in Puerto Rico, but the language that you have used here [[6]] is unacceptable.
I am just trying to come to a civil resolution of the problem, as others have before me. I am sorry to say, that you come over as being a bully, a filibuster. Op47 (talk) 20:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Please do not contact me directly ever again. If you have an issue with the way I reply to you on Wikipedia go to WP:ANI. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 03:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Your talkpage is an appropriate place to deal with concerns regarding your communications; however, if you don't like Op47 raising the matter with you, then allow me to discus it with you. It seems you are not aware of it, but you are being incivil. It would be helpful if you adjusted your tone and VOLUME, and listened more closely to what people are telling you. I see you adopting an attitude whereby you feel that you can ignore the views of others (per WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT) because you feel that you can be bold. Under WP:BRD the process is that you can be bold - but if you are reverted and the consensus is that you are wrong, then you need to accept that and move along. The consensus appears to be that it is not appropriate to have a list of the current mayors of Puerto Rico in two different places. Two possible solutions have been proposed - either have a standalone list, or merge the standalone list into the main article. Your preferred solution of maintaining two separate lists has not gained any agreement. The discussion now needs to move on to which of the two proposed solutions are best: a single list in a standalone article, or a single list in a merged article. I hope you will be able to look back over the discussion with a neutral eye, and take on board what I am saying. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't know that volume could be transmitted through text. Please WP:AGF and leave any preconceptions you may have when coming in. Having said that, WP:BRD does not apply here as there was no consensus reached in the initial discussion. Like I already said in the talk page, and perhaps you should have read that before wasting my time here, when no consensus is reached the initial change must be reincorporated into the article per WP:BEBOLD. Second, it seems you are confusing WP:POLL versus WP:CONSENSUS. Consensus is based on POLICIES, not on opinions. So far no one has been able to provide which POLICY this content style violates. However, I have provided SIX guidelines that asserts CLEARLY AND EXPLICITLY that such style is MORE THAN FINE and USED ALREADY ON WIKIPEDIA. The discussion doesn't need to move anywhere since it's pointless. Just because four people raised their hand and said, "i don't like that" that doesn't establish consensus. Please feel free to rebuke my arguments on the article's talk page rather than here. I hope you are able to look into this impartially and through the lenses of Wikipedia policies as established in WP:CONSENSUS. Please refrain from posting about this matter on my Talk page again and move this conversation to the article's talk page instead. I hope too, that you take on board what I'm saying. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 13:54, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

An abrasive and uncollegiate attitude makes collaborative editing difficult. You have been informed by several people that your views and attitude are not acceptable. You have been informed that your obstructive manner on Mayors in Puerto Rico is not acceptable. I closed the RfC per consensus. Reverting that close, and then restoring the article to your preferred version, is against the principles of collaborative and consensus editing on Wikipedia. Being bold does not trump all else. I have blocked you for 60 hours as this is your second block. Please take this time to reflect on your behaviour. If when you return to Wikipedia you again engage in incivil or obstructive behaviour it is likely that you will be blocked again, and the next time will be longer. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ahnoneemoos/Archives/2013 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This is an unilateral action taken by a single admin. In other words, a WP:WITCHHUNT. The admin has been notified, CLEARLY AND EXPLICITLY, the reasons why his modifications were reverted IN EVERY SINGLE PAGE including his very own talk page. The admin, abusing his power, has decided to block me instead of engaging a third party. You may feel free to review all my edits and the admin's talk page to see UNEQUIVOCALLY that everything that I have done is within Wikipedia's policies and permissible behavior. This is just a sad power trip by someone who doesn't know how to properly use his administrative privileges and is unfamiliar with our policies; evenmoreso incapable of differentiating between an essay and a policy. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 03:28, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Unblock requests containing personal attacks are not considered. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

What personal attacks? Could you please point them out? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 15:45, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

"Sad power trip". "Witch hunt". "Abusing his power". Your characterizations of another volunteer. Since you're blocked for your "abrasive and uncollegiate attitude", you'll need to stop being both abrasive and uncollegial, especially in your unblock request. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:01, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry but those are not personal attacks. Those are facts. Did you even check the details of all the events that occurred? It is pretty obvious what's going on here. I mean, I never violated ANY policies nor any behavioral issues. Everything that I have done is permissible. So if an admin abuses his power and I call him on doing that then I'm attacking him? So basically admins are IMMUNE to do anything they want and you can't call them out? I'm sorry but you need to look at this from an impartial perspective. How dare you call me uncollegial (is that even a word?) when I'm actively participating in a Good Article nomination collaborative effort at Talk:History of women in Puerto Rico and I'm one of the top article creators on Wikipedia? I'm also an active member at WP:WER and have tutored new editors. How dare you call me "uncollegial"? I have been doing this for 12 years since 2001. I invite you to look at how this has transcurred and you will find out UNEQUIVOCALLY that this is an abuse of power by an admin. Every single revert that I made was based on POLICIES, with details on its edit summary, with links to the policy being invoked, and never attacked anyone personally. Yet I'm banned because hey he is an admin and I'm not? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 16:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Josh, I have submitted an appeal to the ArbCom Ban Subcommittee on their mailing list. Thank you for your help though, appreciate it even though we disagree. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 16:32, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Seal-office-of-the-governor-of-puerto-rico.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Seal-office-of-the-governor-of-puerto-rico.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. --Bloonstdfan360 / talk / contribs 03:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOUSERS criticisms in a nutshell

Thanks for the response -- I understand that you are a voluntary contributor, like the rest of us. Please feel no obligation to read my wall, over on the essay-page, or below, for that matter. Mostly both were written for my own purposes (though I tried to be concise here more than there), and to document in depth the places I disagreed (over there), for future readers of your essays.

Here is the TL;DR version. Usernames are fun, making wikipedia fun is (#5 below) crucial to her longetivity, getting rid of usernames will not force people to concentrate on articles, it will force them away from wikipedia. Usernames help anons like me track vandals and revert all their crap (#2 below), not just depend on admins to do it for me, like I would have to do in 4chanpedia. Worst of all, if only chanAdmins can see IPs/pseudonyms, then (#1 below) a rogue chanAdmin will be *extremely* powerful... and that very fact guarantees that (#3 below) such rogue chanAdmins will arise, because the stakes on top-ten-website-in-the-universe wikipedia are tremendously higher than on 4chan. There is no #4. I'm not sure I really understand what you essay proposes, see #0 below. Here is the delicate-stone-archway-of-text equivalent:

Beware thee, an embedded wall of text shalt reveal itself, should ye dare click 'show'......

0. Define 4chanpedia. Zeroth of all, I'm really getting confused about what your essay is proposing. It says right on the tin, NOUSERS. Later, you say there are still admins. In response to one of my questions, you say there will be the ability to login, just nobody except admins will know you have logged in. So, to be perfectly clear, here is what I'm criticizing. When I speak of wikipedia, I mean wikipedia now, with

1m+ invisible readers (only webserverSysadmins can see their IP reading-histories),
100k anonymous IP editors like myself ('everybody' can see my edit-history),
10k pseudonymous editors like yourself (your IP is screened from non-admins),
1k wikiAdmins, often with real names as their usernames, like Jimbo Wales and wikimedia foundation employees and such
100 webserverSysadmins with physical access to the wikipedia hardware

What I think you are advocating is this, which I will refer to as 4chanpedia, please correct me if I'm wrong:

1m+ same
100k reallyAnons, screen out the IP-as-a-username, replace it with 'editor' in all the edit-histories, make talkpage -- if any -- invisible except to admins
10k formerPseudonoms-now-reallyAnons, screen out the uid-as-username, replace it with 'editor' in all edit-histories, make talkpage invisible except to admins
1k+ chanAdmins, can still see 'usernames' and talkpages, can still see IPs, can still ban users, but in some way have less^{[clarification needed]} powers than wikiAdmins
100 same

1. chanAdmins will become an aristocracy of pull. In 4chanpedia, the only people who 'know people' are chanAdmins. This asymmetric information makes chanAdmins *way* more powerful than wikiAdmins. If a rogue chanAdmin decides they want a certain article to say a certain thing, they can make it happen -- any reallyAnon who gets in the way will be banned. You claim there will be less personal attacks between reallyAnons, because nobody will know who to attack... but you fail to see that, if you and I are working on article $foo together, both of us reallyAnons, and I start to disagree with your edits, I can get you banned simply by calling in a favor from my friend $admin, saying ban the editor who made $diff. Who would ever know you were gone? With no open user-to-user communication channels, and no open personal edit histories, you would disappear without a trace. Asymmetry of information will *lead* to corruption, even if we assume all admins are angels, and no reallyAnons are friends with any admins, at the start. Sooner or later, devious reallyAnons will corrupt at least *one* admin, and once you have one rogue admin, you are in really big trouble, unless the other admins notice. Who will guard those selfsame guardians? I suggest, on the other post, the only way to overcome this guarding-the-guardians problem is if you hide IP addresses from *everybody* ... including webserverAdmins with physical access to the wikimedia server farm ... a *very* difficult proposition indeed. See the hyacinth paragraph for blow-by-blow details.

2. Bad-guy-fighting is not impossible, just much harder. Besides corruption of the ban-hammer, leading to corruption of article-content, there is also the difficulty in recruiting wikiAdmins to overcome. You claim that handling vandalism will be easier... based presumably on your assertion that chanAdmins will be far more plentiful than they are now. But I did not catch how chanAdmins will be made more plentiful, exactly... what is the draw that will motivate more people to become chanAdmins, than are currently motivated to become wikiAdmins? If as you say, chanAdmins will be weaker, and purely janitors, then power is not a draw. If, as I explain above, chanAdmins will become arbitrarily powerful aristocrats of pull, well then that is no good either. But just look at my criticism like this: for every wikiAdmin we have now, fighting vandalism takes a fixed amount of work, on average. There are plenty of ways anons and pseudonoms can help fight vandalism, on wikipedia: if we notice a vandal or a spammer, we can revert their change we noticed, and with one click check their edit-trail. I've done it myself; why report something I can clean up without help? On 4chanpedia, chanAdmins will have more work on average: they have to read vandal-alerts from reallyAnon editors, delete the wild goose chases, investigate the rest, and hunt slash patrol. Lots of time spent reading 5000 vandal-alerts, which all turn out to be about the same 12.34.56.78 address... but the chanAdmin has to read those messages one by one, cause otherwise they might miss the 5001st message, about a *different* reallyAnon vandal.

3. chanAdmins *will* crack under these two new pressures. Under the assumption that corruption is already growing wildly (see point#1), and that vandals and spammers are already winning more often (see point#2), we come to the endgame for wikipedia: some PR firm or spyware firm will bribe one of the admins, successfully. They will probably already have a corrupt relationship with some admins, as part of the aristocracy of pull outlined in point#1. Microsoft once offered to pay some guy in Australia to edit the winword article for 'fairness' ... now they'll be able to do it more easily, as long as they can find just one admin willing to ban a few reallyAnons that get in the way. Readers will never notice, and neither will the other reallyAnon editors, because without pseudonyms, how can you tell who you are editing with, and who has been banned?

4. That is all. I tried to stay concise here, hard as it was, and badly as I can see I failed. "I regret that I did not have time to make this message shorter" -- Pascal

p.s. Community-to-protect-n-serve-content now trumps just-content-only. The colorized usernames is a pet peeve of mine. When I see glowing blinking lovingly-crafted usernames, with Dolby-stereo sound-effects, I think of all the time spent, that could have been devoted to articles or to science or to bringing up children properly. But only for a moment. Those awesome usernames are badges of pride -- worn by people proud to be wikipedians. I'm proud of them for being proud of that. So I don't criticize the hours they spend polishing their sig, any more than I would criticize the hours they spend arguing about whether to use infoboxen or not (unless such arguments hurt wikipedia by making it a toxic place to work). Sigs make wikipedia a better place, even though I won't make one personally. Taking away usernames, and taking away userpages, and taking away user-to-user talkpages, hurts wikipedia because it makes it less attractive to potential editors. Look at all the barely-encyclopedic articles we have on television shows and bands and videogames. Those are crucial articles, because they attract new blood. Some of that new blood eventually edits, and then eventually branches out. That was what the colorized sigs was about; I figured, since you were trying to get rid of usernames, you thought time spent on colorized sigs was Time Wasted That Would Better Have Been Spent On Improving Articles. (You do seem to have that opinion about talkpage yammer, so I'll end my comments really soon now. :-) My counterargument to your overall philosophy, which is that we should eliminate everything that does not directly support polishing articles, is simple. If you take away stuff people enjoy, like luminous artworks as their uid, then you are not giving them more time to contribute to wikipedia -- you are driving them *away* from wikipedia. If they weren't wasting time on a colorful sig, they'd waste time waxing their car, watching teevee, or some other pursuit. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, sustained by her community, and although the community could rebuild wikipedia if all the articles were gone, the encyclopedia herself will die without her entourage. So we better make sure any changes -- like getting rid of usernames -- actually increase the number of active editors, proud to be wikipedians, ready to defend her.

Thanks for reading; hope this is clearer. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

If a rogue chanAdmin decides they want a certain article to say a certain thing, they can make it happen -- any reallyAnon who gets in the way will be banned.

No, anyone will be able to see the changes performed by a chanAdmin. Whoever gets in their way and gets banned will be shown in a log. We would still have the same mechanisms we have today to contact our admins when you are banned. For example, I was banned but I was still able to contact WP:ARBCOM and appeal my ban.

I can get you banned simply by calling in a favor from my friend $admin

How would you know who is an admin? How would you know how to contact said admin? Nobody knows who the 4chan admins are for example.

Who would ever know you were gone?

Logs. Bans would still be logged for other admins to see.

Sooner or later, devious reallyAnons will corrupt at least *one* admin, and once you have one rogue admin, you are in really big trouble, unless the other admins notice.

That happens today already. We would still be able to do the same thing as admin actions would still be shown. We just wouldn't be able to know WHICH admin did it. But we would still be able to report the action. Enough reports = bad decision by an admin = removal of admin powers. Same as today.

You claim that handling vandalism will be easier... based presumably on your assertion that chanAdmins will be far more plentiful than they are now.

Once again, anyone can fight vandalism. You don't need to be an admin to fight vandalism.

But I did not catch how chanAdmins will be made more plentiful, exactly... what is the draw that will motivate more people to become chanAdmins, than are currently motivated to become wikiAdmins?

There's a big difference between been a known admin and an anonymous admin. People will still have the same motivation they have today, except fame.

No more energy to read the wall of text after this.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

TLDR. Anon admins is an awesome idea. Still think keeping editor-usernames is a win, but really like anon-admins. Could stagger admin-schedules, to keep their identity secret. Unbundle powers, too. Admins would sign up for an hour-a-week shift, no editor-uid-actions allowed for 12 hours before shift starts, nor 12 hours after. No fame. No bans-in-anger. Less stress. Bar less high(?). Corruption by PR and search and telecoms and federal spies of wikipedia admins (anon or not) still *very* difficult to solve; you and I may not know names of 4chan admins, but hypercorps do. Is there still a 4chanpedia contribs button, for every 'admin' and for every 'editor', so I can backtrack the edit-history of a vandal, without ever knowing their IP, and without bringing in any kind of admin help? If so, I missed that. Gratitude. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:22, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

wherein one will find a fascinating^{[dubious – discuss]} and insightful^{[citation needed]} and humorous^[vague] wall of text... and how dare you snark me and stick in those tags....

WP:AdminsAreSecretService. Thanks for plowing through as far as you did. Maybe bring some oxygen tanks next time? I think we solved most of my confusion, anyways; appreciate it. I do quite like the idea that every single admin account would be dubbed 'admin' and thus be mostly anonymous. There is also ' root' which is used by webserverSysadmins on unix-slash-linux servers like wikipedia's, still cleanly distinct. While I agree having anonymous admins is helpful, I still disagree that having anonymous editors is helpful. So, my proposal-slash-essay would be called WP:AdminsAreSecretService. Instead of an editor being promoted from MyKew1Uid to MyKew1Uid_plus_admin_permbit_yeah_baby_yeah, newly-RfA'd admins would simply be given a user-specific unique password that permitted them to login as 'admin'. They would retain their normal username, for their editing tasks. There would have to be scheduling of admin-duties, however, to keep admins really anonymous. The rule could work like this: if you logged in as your username, to perform some edits, you would be *unable* to login using your unique admin-passwd, until you had made no edits for twelve^{[citation needed]} full hours. To keep wikipedia staffed, admins would have to coordinate -- Maurice would sign up for Monday admin-duty (and set an alarm to auto-logout his 'Maurice' username by 6pm on Sunday so he would be ready for duty by 6am Monday). Tom would be 'admin' for Tuesday, Wendy for Wednesday, and so on. In emergencies, rather than violate the rules, I'd rather temporary deputization of non-admin-editors by on-staff admins be the preferred procedure; as you point out, any editor can fight vandalism.

Anonymity Is Hard. WP:AdminsAreSecretService would reduce pursuit of adminship for fame, and also reduce use of the ban-hammer

in anger. Admins might still hold grudges, but unless at least 168 other admins (assuming 1-hour-shifts per week for admins) *agreed* with that grudge, all editors would be free to work at *some* point, and if their work was always reverted during that one single hour of every week, the grudge would be obvious to all. Admin-accounts would not be able to *edit* mainspace articles at all -- just ban, block, delete, revert, and other specialized admin duties (plus of course respond on talkpages of articles and/or users -- which I consider the prime directive nowadays). There would probably still be *some* editors that would be outed as admins... but we could put a strong prohibition

on admin-bit-bragging, a very strong prohibition on any out-of-band contacts with admins, and so on. You are under the impression that nobody knows who 4chan admins are; since you know more about it than me, maybe you are right. But I know who the wikipedia admins are, without seeing their usernames, because of their master of wikilawyer jargon, knowledge of strange bureacratic innards, ability to see deleted pages, and so on. How does 4chan keep adminship a secret? What are the stakes, in terms of cold hard cash, and hot explosive power, that would make some adversary go to the trouble? Wikipedia is high stakes. Think as if you had hundreds of millions of dollars at your disposal to find out -- you work for a big PR firm, and your boss wants to sell clients Better Articles on wikipedia. Linguistic analysis of 4chan and wikipedia posts, cross-matched with facebook & linkedin, would give me the names and phone numbers of at least 10+% of the admins on 4chan, I'm willing to bet (and 90+% of wikipedia admins the way things are today). If I was google/bing/yahoo, or a big telecom... probably they *already* know who most wikipedia and 4chan admins are, via analysis of ISP logfiles and browser-bar-type-to-search profiles. But even for regular users... people will recognize each other, despite anonymity, if they try to. If my IP changed, and some 'other' IP dropped a wall of text with my speech-patterns on your talkpage, you'd know it was me, right? <grin>

Implementation. So... you, dear reader, want to make this happen? I have not thought through all the hard details of the transition plan, should WP:AdminsAreSecretService become consensus. But I will point out that, right now, any wikiAdmin ... or for that matter any regular wikipedia editor who wants to separate concerns and spend their time editing most days but do a bit of vandal-fighting or mop-work on one particular day ... is currently free to implement this scheme, for themselves personally, today. All they need to do is make a second username[7], called SecretService SecretService_ SecretService. _SecretService Secret.Service .Sec_ret.Ser.vice_ or some similarly-anonymous variation that differs only in punctuation. Add as much punctuation as you need, to get the new username accepted, but no more. Do not resort to letters or numerals. Stick with ASCII. (Technical note: calling yourself an 'admin' right now is misleading ... and hey, the whole point of WP:AdminsAreSecretService is to change the meaning of what being an admin really is... so as to replace them with members of wikipedia's secret service... so actually this SecretService-usernames-only approach is quite fitting). Some delicacy is required here, to avoid violating wikipedia's rules against sockpuppetry. NEVER EDIT ANYTHING BUT TALKPAGES, AND NEVER !VOTE ON ANYTHING, FROM YOUR 'SECRETSERVICE' USERNAME. Use your normal method (username or IP) for working on articles; plus, never do work from both places simultaneously. Never let the right hand know what the left hand is doing. Also, until WP:AdminsAreSecretService is an official policy... "Editors who want to use more than one account for some valid reason should provide links between them on the respective user pages (see below), with an explanation of the purpose of each account or of the relationship between them." See also: WP:MULTIPLE and Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Legitimate_uses. Good luck. Oh, and in case the 'good reason' was not crystal clear: To Advocate Reform Of Wikipedia.

p.s. On the other points you made, we are mostly in agreement. "Bans are logged for admins to see." But *not* for users... so if a rogue admin#1 bans reallyAnon#2, the only way reallyAnon#3 can ever even know there *was* a ban of reallyAnon#2 is if some admin#4 reviews the decision (and is not also rogue... or even just overworked!). It is simply not as many checks and balances as we have now. If I work on articles with Thief12, and suddenly Thief12 never shows up anymore, I'm gonna make it my business to know why, check their talkpage, check their contribs. If 'editor' never shows up, on the other hand.... "Once again, anyone can fight vandalism." Maybe you have not made it to the paragraph numbered 2 in the wall... but here is a story. Sam the spammer spams article X and Y and Z. Dolly DoGooder sees Z, and reverts it. How can she fix Y and then X, without contacting a chanAdmin? In wikipedia today, she just clicks the contribs link. Are you saying we keep the contribs link, but instead of saying 'Sam' is just says 'editor' and instead of saying IP-goes-here it just says 'editor' but Dolly can still backtrack through Sam's vandalism history? I guess that makes sense... but I only figured out that might be what you meant just now.

I will mull these things over for awhile, and then maybe return to WP:NOUSERS to provide a new section. I'll try to keep it terse. :-) Nice to meet you, see you around. Ping my talkpage again if you need anything. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:22, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Having a busy week right now. Give me until this weekend to reply. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 00:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

OK I just read your new wall of text. It seems you have a different idea. How about you spin it off in your own essay or proposal? Feel free to contribute to WP:NOUSERS as well but remember NOUSERS is very general. Maybe your proposal can be a section called "Possible implementation method #1" or something like that? Regarding normal users not knowing bans: there are ways to manage that: publicly showing that a certain ban was performed but not showing who performed it nor on who it was performed? I think this kind of stuff is better to open it up to the community. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 10:47, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the wp:AdminsAreSecretService is definitely distinct -- and of course, I won't be trying to rewrite wp:NoUsers to look like wp:AdminsAreSecretService, but will try and get my own essay-URL. Thanks for wp:NoUsers, and for helping me fully grok what you intended here on the talkpages, that is how I was able to come up with my own variant proposal (more of a double-cousin than a sibling). I do think I finally understand wp:NoUsers well enough now to revisit the wp:NoUsers talkpage, and clean up (archive) some of my former text-walls there. I will also try to draft a F.R.O. section (frequently raised objections ;-) so that folks like blackmane and my-former-self and so on can have a shot at not repeating the same old "what about IP addresses" objections.

My main communication problem, as you have been at pains to politely point out, is that I am way too verbose... but if I might point out gently in return, wp:NoUsers simply cannot be grokked by the average reader in the two short paragraphs you wrote. It leaves too many things to the imagination, and some of us have wild imaginations, as you may have noticed. I realize you maintain it is an essay, general in nature, and not actually a specific proposal per se, but as Robert Frost found out in his poem about winter, readers to this day insist that the poem was *really* a metaphor about death/sadness/whatever. You may not have intended it, but wp:NoUsers is a proposal, for very specific radical-at-first-glance changes, according to your readers. The customer is always right, as they say. Sorry! Talk to you later. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to modify and expand WP:NOUSERS further. I don't own it even though I'm its author. But at least try to keep it short and simple! lol take care buddy —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 15:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOUSERS questions from Blackmane

Hi, I was perusing WP:RFAR and came across your request and the attendant comment about your essay. One thing that I have to say about your essay is that it is fatally flawed for one reason, copyright. You may argue that copyright at the moment is attributed to a pseudonymously named account, but there is a guarantee that there is but one person behind the account (even sockpuppets are 1 person behind an account). Your concept of anonymising the entire editor base basically throws copyright out the window since there is no way of knowing what material was contributed by whom. You might also argue that the admins can see the IP that made the contribution, but with the anonymising of accounts you would have just made the job ten times harder for the admins than it already is. If you have any doubts, please go look at WP:CCI and the amount of checking that is being done.

This leads nicely to my next point. If you lump copyright on top of fighting vandals, article deletion (and presumably creation since anonymous accounts cannot create articles AFAIK), sorting out disputes, etc etc you can quickly see that chanAdmins cannot, and will not, work. The thankless workload that the existing admin base already deals with will easily be multiplied a hundred fold when dealing with an entirely anonymised editor base. Even if the admin base were to increase tenfold, the editor base would have increased many times more than that since the admin base would have been recruited out of this base. Incidentally, as 74.* pointed out, you haven't defined how they would be recruited.

My last point, for now, is probably the most fatal flaw in your concept and that is dynamic IP addresses. ISP's in many countries do not assign fixed IP address to any one account holder. Furthermore, some editors do their editing from public Wifi, which is always dynamic. These addresses, currently, are never blocked long term since the rotation among users is so rapid. If you think about the ramifications of a fully anonymised user base within a dynamically addressed environment, particularly with the admin work load your idea intends and you will see that recruiting even one admin will be impossible. Blackmane (talk) 09:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The first point can easily be managed in the backend without showing IPs or usernames to the general public. Let's say everybody reports the same contributor over and over (without actually knowing it's the same person) the system will notice the pattern and showcase such contributions to the public (without showing who did it). It would be like WP:CCI but automated rather than manually as it is today.

Your second point: that's where we would must differ and have completely different opinions without actually having evidence to back up our claims. Let me explain: I postulate that since people will now not know who edited what, people will now be driven to contribute more and participate more in discussions. This would lead to a more vibrant community that is able to express themselves freely knowing that they will not be persecuted by their expressions since nobody will know who they are (save for admins). Unfortunately neither you and I have a way to prove or rebut this.

Regarding your other point about dynamic IPs: we already have that. Check out the German Wikipedia and see how they deal with it (they are more lax regarding non-registered/IP users). The only way to ban a user is by IP. Ban that IP the user comes up with another one, and so on. So I don't see exactly how anonymizing would change things for how they currently are?

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 10:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

@Blackmane, the actual reason wikipedia's CC-BY-SA license is enforced is by the clickwrap. The pseudonym is irrelevant. I edit as an anon, but when I click 'save page' I have legally agreed to the TOS.[8] Your contention that pseudonyms are 'guaranteed' to be a single person is not quite right (anybody with your Blackmane-password can impersonate you), but that is not relevant to copyright-transfer, only the clickwrap matters. Contrast with WP:COPYVIO, where the person clicks 'save page' with plagiaristic slash fraudulent intent. In any case, WP:NOUSERS works just fine with the current licensing-approach wikipedia uses, and Ahnoneemoos is not trying to change that in any way.

On your second point, admins can still see who is who, the idea is that editors cannot. The core of his proposal is *screening* aka obscuring aka hiding the pseudonyms and the IP addresses from the 99% of us that are normal editors. If WP:NOUSERS were to become official policy, you would *still* login as Blackmane... but your talkpage would say 'editor' not Blackmane, and your edit-history would say 'editor' not Blackmane (except to admins who clicked the 'unhide' button). Same for me: my talkpage would say 'editor' instead of an IP, and my edit-history would say 'editor'. The only folks who can unhide this obscured info are admins, in the WP:NOUSERS proposal. They, and only they, can see who is doing what. When you and I see an admin, all we see is 'admin' rather than a personalized username. We see each other as 'editor' rather thana username or an IP. But under the hood, everything still works like before, which is to say, just like wikipedia works now. There is just an extra feature added on top: a bot that hides all usernames, except from admins. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 06:22, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

federal politics in PR

Do you have any interest in these topics, either as real-life stuff, or as articles? (Sometimes a fine line.)

Puerto_Rico_Republican_primary,_2012 , and later years. Republican_National_Committee_members namely Luis Fortuño, Zori Fonalledas, Carlos Méndez

Puerto_Rico_Democratic_primary,_2008 , and later years. Roberto_Prats (hmmm, does not seem to be an article listing all superdelegates but as 'state party chair' he is one of them) — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 01:20, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for reminding me. Pr4ever (talk) 10:05, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't manage primaries nor biographies but there's a guy that does. User:Thief12 manages primaries while User:Pr4ever manages political biographies. I focus more on entities and bio stubs of decision makers. Have you checked Template:WikiProject Puerto Rico participants? If you need help just ask in WT:PUR; someone will hopefully give you a hand. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay thanks, that will help. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 19:24, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement in Puerto Rico RFAR

You said "I rebuked his arguments" (wiktionary link added by me). I think you mean you rebutted his arguments. AGK [•] 21:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, thx broski. <3 —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 00:21, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Easy mistake to make! AGK [•] 13:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Anne Marie Murphy (teacher) concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Anne Marie Murphy (teacher), a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 02:08, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rachel D'Avino concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rachel D'Avino, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 02:08, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Declined arbitration request

Your arbitration request "Mayorality in Puerto Rico" has been declined by the Committee. You may find the arbitrators' comments helpful. For the Arbitration Committee, Rs chen 7754 19:23, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

you are so wrong about Anne Delong

:-) Hello again, your message has a response, with an alternative pair of suggestions that I urge you to consider, should you have time. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Editor_Retention#Reviewing_the_Anne_Delong_phenomena. Thanks for improving wikipedia. p.s. Only one of my suggested alternatives is a wall-o-text , the other is short and sweet, promise. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Man believe me I would love to read all that but I'm super busy right now. Let's wait 'til Christmas that's usually my downtime as business slows down. Keep up the good work though. Sorry I can't reply at the moment. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 20:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

No prob. Take care, and thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)