Latest comment: 6 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion
{{flag}}
I added that domain names are unacceptable in usernames. I hope that everyone is agreeable with this. Remove flag if there are no objections. Cheers, --SVTCobra12:31, 8 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
Good question. There are so many root level domains now. This was prompted by a www.something.com in user name. --SVTCobra23:38, 3 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
In my DBMS lecture, I told some of my classmates, I would name my child "$!". User:-revi suggested to name "DROP DATABASES;". I had also thought for "for(int i =0; ; i++);". "https://www.anyNAMEhere.com" sounds a good name. •–•17:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
I point out technical ambiguity is not an obstacle to this, because we don't apply this policy mindlessly. A human being can step back and look at the big picture, and thing about intent, taking context into account. And consult others. And ask questions. --Pi zero (talk) 22:21, 8 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
I fail to see how the last comment brought technical ambiguity, @Pi zero:. I just brought up that thing because I thought it was worth mentioning -- and it actually helped me figure out about the ASCII double quotes I told you. 103.254.128.130 (talk) 03:34, 12 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago47 comments9 people in discussion
I would like to propose that
If someone uses an alternative account, they are required to mark it on its user page from their primary account by writing "This is an alternative account of XYZ".
If they are using an anonymous account (edit while logged out), they are required to mark their IP user page from their primary account by writing "This IP is used by XYZ".
can you possibly imagine how difficult that would be when someone is using cellular data while traveling? I lose signal and get a new IP at least 20 times in a one way trip of 125km. Also, encouraging doesn’t mean that they are forced to; after all, the statement is “the free news source you can write” — even anonymously. 103.254.128.130 (talk) 23:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
Either stay logged in (cookies work), or later find the IPs (whenever you are logged in) and tag their user pages appropriately. If you don't want to bother with this, don't create a user account. --Gryllida (talk) 23:28, 3 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Gryllida: We don't want to encourage people to not create an account, either, surely?
@Acagastya: To understand: there is a technical obstacle to just logging in and staying logged in, in this circumstance? (I'm trying to understand the nature of the technical problem we would hope to mitigate.) --Pi zero (talk) 23:48, 3 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
Indeed we do not want to encourage people not to create an account. Regarding the technical problem, I was told they don't stay logged in because they do not want someone to gain access to their account in the case they compromise their device or gain access to it for a limited amount of time. I had proposed to use a screen lock (w:Lock screenScreen locker on a mobile; pictured) but the conversation stopped there and then. --Gryllida (talk) 00:09, 4 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
(To further clarify: my writing that said 'to not create a user account' was meant to convey the point that people who do not have a user account have nothing to mark their IPs with. And if they have a user account, they need to put effort into marking the IPs or the edits. If they are concerned that the IP is dynamic and may later start to belong to a different person, they may mark their edits instead of marking their IPs, for instance, by listing their edits on a subpage in their user space.) --Gryllida (talk) 00:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
Perhaps this suggestion goes contrary to the thought that "alternate accounts are okay as long as they are not abused, for instance, for double voting in discussions". I, too, do not have a problem with a fresh start, if it is not abused. I do have a problem with the user constantly switching their handles, though, as it leads to confusion and makes it difficult to evaluate their motivations when they participate in a discussion or editing. --Gryllida (talk) 00:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
Side point: On en.wn, any fresh start should be documented. We're willing to give someone a chance for a fresh start if it's credible, but we need to know what we're tentatively allowing them to move past.
On the main topic of discussion: I accept that physical security of a phone is a major problem; in fact, based on my own sense of physical security of such an object, I don't think I would trust the security of my account to screen locking either — too easy for something to go wrong. Stipulating that there are situations where a user with a registered account will reasonably want to contribute without logging in, seems this is a technical problem with two parts:
When editing as an IP, document the claimed association with the registered account. Ideally, this would mean both noting the claim in edit summaries, and indicating it in signatures. The edit-summary measure is wanted because not all edits are signed (e.g., article edits are not signed). Whatever is done to to note these claims, it should be clearly different from what a logged-in contribution would look like; an IP should not spoof a logged-in edit, such as by using an identical signature to the registered account.
Document, somewhere in either user space or user talk space, the claimed association between the IP and the registered account. I'm unsure whether there may be some subtle privacy issue with this. The intent, as I understand, is so that one can look up to see whether a given IP has been used for edits claiming association with a given registered account. Supposing we do want to do this, it could be even more challenging; it may call for a bot (or bot-like facility), to find the claims in edit summaries and signatures and convert those into user/user-talk documentation.
Personally I would register a 'Gryllida (mobile)' account without privileged access, and edit from that. It would be interesting to know whether it solves the problem at hand, as a possible alternative to IP marking and screen locking. --Gryllida (talk) 02:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
The main privacy issue is one user revealing private information about another user e.g. the login IP, without a good reason. It is less clear when the user reveals such information about themselves, whether accidentally or not. As for the original question, I would have thought point 1 would be standard practice. Point 2 is indeed more problematic, not least with the possibility of spoofing. I like the idea of a bot, perhaps similar to the User:SineBot, which tags unsigned talk page comments. Green Giant (talk) 03:18, 4 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
Block me if you have to, but don’t order me what to do and what not to, if you have never experienced it. A lesser privileged account like “someone (mobile)”? Like that time when I reviewed articles while traveling on a train? No thanks. Start paying attention to content rather than the one who says it. 223.237.248.42 (talk) 03:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
┌─────────────────────────────────┘ I have mentioned it before; I mention it again. Ever tried to close an application on iOS and open it again? 103.254.128.130 (talk) 03:58, 4 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
No. Could you please provide a self-sufficient answer that does not require me to visit Wikipedia? I couldn't find any relevant information there. Thank you. Gryllida (talk) 04:18, 4 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
Mozilla’s website has detailed information in a nutshell. And Wikipedia? As a reliable source, come on! Well I am not going to spend my time for explaining things I have already said. 103.254.128.130 (talk) 04:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
Unfortunately I do not remember what you said before. If I did I would not be asking the question. A repeated explanation of a complimentary link to the past discussion would be desired. WN:Etiquette requires work toward agreement, not toward disagreement. Gryllida (talk) 04:33, 4 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Gryllida: the IP is referring to closing the Firefox browser app on an iPhone (rather than minimising it), which logs them out of Wikimedia wikis. It is a more private browser than the standard Safari app which is normally included in iPhones. However, if the cookies aren't blocked in the settings, when the browser is reopened, it should be a matter of just putting in the password because the username should be saved in the login screen. Green Giant (talk) 04:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
I recall being told it is a long password that is hard to type on a mobile. However the situation with cookies is enigmatic to me. Is configuring Firefox Focus to whitelist Wikinews cookies, or using another web browser, an option? --Gryllida (talk) 05:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
┌─────────────────────────────────┘ instead of suggesting me to change my browser, or use some other applications, why don’t you tell me one compelling reason why should this even happen. Besides, what you are suggesting, that could be misused by any registered user to steal credit of any anon’s contributions. 223.237.225.181 (talk) 08:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
I am not suggesting you to change things. I am only asking you why you are doing it this way. Please do not avoid the question, then I will have more time for news writing and less time for writing lengthy paragraphs such as this one. --Gryllida (talk) 10:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
You know what is funny? That despite knowing why I am doing it, you are repeating the same question over and over again. That you have been wasting my time and claiming that I am wasting yours. Did my editing require your attention? Why did you not raise this concern when I used to edit from my college IP three years ago, and wrote 26 articles (I wonder how many articles you wrote in that time span!) So instead of persuading me to answer something I have already told you, why don't you try to persuade me or anyone, finding a good reason to follow what you are asking to? 103.254.128.130 (talk) 11:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
I stand by what I said previously.
If I knew the answer I would not be asking the question.
I already said this and already apologized for not remembering it.
Bashing me for not remembering what you said is not going to make me remember it now.
If you avoid being so offended by the need say it again, it would be much easier for us to come to agreement.
I stand by what I previously said: give me one compelling reason to do domething like you have proposed. •–•20:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
Once again:
I do not propose you to change how you are doing things I am only asking you why you are doing it this way.
I find your way of doing it difficult because (a) there is seemingly no reason to edit while logged out since you have not provided it and (b) it makes it more difficult for me to know what user talk page to leave messages to about the anonymous edits.
Even if you dislike or disagree with the point above, you may explain what you are doing and it would eliminate the need in further discussions.
┌─────────────────────────────────┘ carry out the discussion on the same page where the IP left the message, duh. Can’t recall anyone using my talk of my IP’s talk when I was using static IP for almost a year. 103.254.128.130 (talk) 20:55, 4 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
That's not optimal. The messages need to be left on your Acagastya's talk page. Otherwise we have scattered discussions. I am seeing you are not collaborating; I won't either, then. Have a nice day. Gryllida (talk) 21:19, 4 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
To further clarify:
I wanted to follow up on some of the things that you are doing, but they are scattered across several IPs and the account, which does make it difficult to follow (not to mention follow up or leave a message) about these things. I suspect this is the same reason why people are having difficulty approaching you to thank you for your work or to suggest improvements or provide feedback, be that at your IP talk page or at your normal account talk page.
I am deeply disappointed with the difficulty that you have in explaining why all of this is taking place. I am not here to torment you with the same question being asked over and over, and if you feel that it is asked frequently, the only constructive option is answer it once somewhere, and link all subsequent people who ask to the place where it has already been answered. Again I am deeply disappointed with how this all went. It is truly enigmatic to me, both the technical difficulty of finding an adequately configured browser for the above mentioned operating system, and the difficulty in explaining the use-case fully.
I am not sure how you communicate with others, but in this particular instance, your communication with me is stubborn, obtuse, mean, not efficient, dense, thick, dull, and plainly embarrassing. Perhaps it feels the same way to you, but at least I am trying to answer your questions, each time, whereas the information from your end is severely lacking.
Anything about improvement should be on the article talk; that helps others how it could be improved. I do not have difficulty explaining the problem; I do not see a need to because I write articles when logged in, so that discussion can happen on talk. Regarding thanking me for my edits, there is no need to. Something that would be of a great help is non-empty review comments so that not only me but anyone following that article can learn. 103.254.128.130 (talk) 02:42, 5 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
I go by what I said previously. Anonymous editing means others have no opportunity to leave comments to you as a person. "Thanks for reporting X and Y interesting story on topic or area Z" or "perhaps you want to write about A or B" require a valid user talk page to be present and read. It is better if it is the same talk page so that I don't ask one IP today and then ask the same thing to another IP tomorrow. Gryllida (talk) 04:43, 5 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
I guess you mean when it is dynamic IP. I had been using college IP in 2015/16, that was dynamic. Would you like to guess how many "thank you"s for an article I had authored or "article requests" I had received even though it was a centralised page? The answer is zero. You have not been in this for long -- Pi zero has been observing this for almost three years now, so I would like to know what they think about this -- of course the three-year experience would have greater impact than three-month experience. And for article suggestion? Drop a line at wikinewsie group. More poeple would be able to work on it. 223.237.204.115 (talk) 08:42, 5 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
No, I meant article suggestions directed at you personally. The case of many people working on it is not relevant to this discussion. I indeed have been observing the IP editing for only a short amount of time, and it has made me spend enormous amounts of emotional effort trying to identify the dynamics of what is happening and who is editing. I digress; let's see what other people say (and whether they want to know the enigma that prevents you from using a web browser that remembers cookies). Gryllida (talk) 10:46, 5 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
┌───────────────────┘
Two thoughts.
Regarding undesirability of IPs: Back when Lila Tretikov was around, and folks were giving her the benefit of the doubt in trying to help her see into some of the conceptual blind spots of the Foundation, I recall she remarked on the subject of Foundation employees getting experience on wikimedia projects that she sometimes edited on Wikipedia without logging in, but didn't get any feedback. And she was promptly told by a Wikipedian, of course you don't get feedback, because it's impossible to given personalized feedback to someone editing as an IP as the IP isn't specific to that person (ultimately due, of course, to the fact that an IP does not uniquely identify a person). In essence, they told Lila that editing as an IP makes it impossible to give feedback and the Wikipedian admitted to generally figuring if someone wanted to be able to receive feedback they'd be logged into a registered account.
Regarding reasons. I think I've got part of the reasoning here, but I'm also missing part. My understanding is that logging into a privileged account on a smart phone is too fraught with risk, with just way too much that can go wrong. This makes sense to me; envisioning the situation, I can see deep security problems both with entering a hard password on a phone, and with use of locking to counteract the physical insecurity of the situation. However, this is just the sort of situation that a low-security alternate account is used for, and I'm unclear as to why that is not considered a good solution in this case.
I did not get this part: "I meant article suggestions directed at you personally." I have stopped writing articles without logging in (only if I forgot to log in and wrote the whole story, I save the revision and then log in; however, I can't recall a single incident of that happening in last twelve months) 103.254.128.130 (talk) 17:12, 5 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
1) Regarding IP editing: static IP contributors suffer the joys of seeing others misremember them because an IP is harder to remember than an account name; dynamic IP contributors suffer the same, plus also two more "features":
lack of any personal communication on their talk page, with communication being limited to article talk pages,
their contributions become scattered and difficult to follow.
In my opinion these are serious disadvantages. They result in the waste of time of people who are attempting to collaborate. Continued usage of dynamic IPs leaves me without a wish to continue participating in these time consuming tasks.
Re static IPs. In my experience, static IPs also suffer from lack of personal feedback, because although one person may stay at the same IP, that IP may be available to multiple people. This means, for example, that if a message were left on the user talk page of that IP, it might be read by someone else, and if more than one person at that IP participates on the project, real confusion can result and a message cannot be expected to arrive at its target, or even to have a target that can be reliably identified by the intended recipient. For which reason, as I understand, folks often don't try to leave messages on IP user talk pages even if the IP is static. Granted, the problem is even worse with dynamic IPs; but the problem was already perceived (often) to be prohibitive of personal communication; a comment on an IP talk page would typically be couched in terms of informing anyone who might be associated with that IP. --Pi zero (talk) 11:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
Let's see what happens practically: go ahead and see my user talk: how many article suggestions I have received till date. Tell me how many people leave messages frequently. I am open to suggestion, you know where to ping me; but I do not see one good reason to claim edits from an IP. •–•12:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
There is no point in considering discussions open when it is a small wiki and one has not considered to respond, or in this case, failed to explain why is it crucial to even consider this discussion. As far as the "worry" of not getting response from an IP is concerned, I would want you to comment upon the condition where editors feel so helpless when their article is about to lose freshness and they leave a talk page message for those having reviewer rights, who haven't edited in years! Does that not bother you? •–•17:35, 9 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
We can find ways to improve the efficiency of each minute someone (you, me, reviewers, new authors) spend on the web site. A part of that is not wasting their time figuring out which IP is you and what is the context for their personal attacks and tantrums placed on articles talk pages. I'm looking for accountability for that.
The problem that you have voiced in the second half of your paragraph is well-known and requires a minimal effort, maximum effect solutions such as technical and collaborative advancements in the reviewing process. Continued whining and inserting "does it not bother you?" in the middle of other discussions is truly unhelpful indeed. --Gryllida (talk) 00:04, 12 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
┌─────────────────────────────────┘ So is your whole point of this discussion, which by the way, would never work. You are saying that I am whining, but tell me, how many articles did you suggest me, on-wiki, till date? I can't comprehend this: you have never asked me to write about X -- when I had static IP or when I used my account; but as soon as I use dynamic IP, you want to suggest articles to write to someone who has just participated in a discussion and as you described, someone who displays "personal attacks and tantrums". Wow. 103.254.128.130 (talk) 03:31, 12 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
This discussion started out with a proposal to address a concern. The obvious contentful background questions to discuss would be, what is the perceived concern, and what difficulties would there be with implementing the proposal (or otherwise mitigating the concern). Both of these points were approached, but neither got completed, and somehow things got sidetracked by emotive back-and-forth. I'd really like to leave the emotion behind and consider the content. The state of the contentful discussion as I understand it:
The concern, afaik, was to associate on-wiki activities with the on-wiki identity of any Wikinewsie who has a registered account here. This association is already long-standing standard practice for en.wn, taken more seriously here than on other sisters, but historically we haven't had Wikinewsies who edit anonymously here (except occasionally by accident), and since we now have more Wikinewsie anonymous editing, it may be appropriate to consider the implications of that change for the usual association of activities with identity. Specifically, when a registered user edits anonymously, it undermines the usual association of activities with identity in two ways: other users are deprived of the various benefits of understanding behaviors in the context of who is doing them, and the behaviors may fail to attach to the registered user's cumulative reputation.
The proposal does not require people to log in; but, nontheless, there was some discussion of why it can be impractical for a user to log in on a phone. I understand part of this, although I don't feel completely clear on the drawbacks of using a low-privilege alternate account. Admittedly, that would be a simple way to mitigate the concerns, if it were viable.
For some reason, I don't recall any serious discussion of what would seem the most central implementation issue: how to make it easy for someone who isn't logged in to either comply with the proposal or, at least, to mitigate the concerns that led to the proposal.
