User talk:Atcovi/Archive 3

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive This 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.

O really?

[1] What is wrong with this picture, my friend? --Abd (discusscontribs) 00:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

How did you know!!?? --goldenburg111 (talk) 18:34, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Like, obvious, eh? <redundant>? --Abd (discusscontribs) 20:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Heh, heh. --goldenburg111 (talk) 20:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


See you later, when you become active again. - Sidelight12 Talk 00:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'll be editing, but not as much as before :) --goldenburg111 (talk) 18:34, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

conversation about the past

On a user talk page where you had asked about again pursuing adminship here, it was written:

  • I strongly oppose adminship at anytime on any wiki for this user. Anyone with that record of sockpuppetry and immaturity is automatically disqualified, in my opinion. He cannot be trusted to see deleted edits. On other wikis, sockpuppetry alone is an automatic disqualification for adminship, for good reason.--[username not shown] 02:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Given that there was no active request, this was unnecessary, and the arguments were confused. However, it was his right to express his opinion, and Wikiversity is quite tolerant of such expressions. His statement did not reflect policy, but only his opinion about what may be true in general, but which also is subject to many exceptions. The user may never have realized the reality of the situation. You pointed to a post of his from last May:

  • [name], excuse me [name]? But is there anyway I can help or make it up to those days? Plus, I am a rollbacker on the Simple English Wiktionary, and Bad-Mouthing or Backbiting is uncivil, same thing with this; A very uncivil comment. --goldenburg111 (talk) 16:39, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll point out that if you expect him to be held accountable for what he wrote over six months ago, this is not aligned with the rest of us letting what you did then -- and before -- slide into the past. This is what he wrote:

  • And here's what I have to say to you: You yourself are never a good judge of your own maturity and experience. For all I know, you could be a full-grown adult. However, the only evidence I have is those comments and they indicate immaturity. If you're really grown-up, act like it. (and if you act aggressively to such criticism, I understand, but it also further convinces me you don't have the patience that I would expect from a custodian candidate)--[username deleted] 00:14, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

You had claimed "maturity," he was responding to that. That was misleading. One of the great puzzles of life, is that people will complain when a child acts like a child. It's really quite funny, don't you think? We knew that you were not a "full-grown adult," far from it. That was utterly and completely obvious, beyond question. However, those who knew weren't present, By that time, you had learned to present relatively mature text, though anyone really paying attention could, I'm sure, tell that there was something wrong with this picture. Yes, you are a "full and mature person." That is, you have a personality that is "full." You aren't a baby. I know about how old you are, from several evidences, and you are *astonishingly mature* for your chronological age. However, you also are not ready to be an administrator. I would place no time limit on that, but don't recommend that you even think about it at this time. Just continue growing and learning and helping when you can.

And don't encourage your relatives or friends to comment about you. One of the things that you will need to know a lot more about, before being ready to be an administrator, is conflict on the wikis. You will gain that experience by watching discussions, initially without participating in them. They called these comments "meat puppetry." That's a Wikipedia term, rather insulting, and it's been abused a lot. "Sock puppetry" is the presentation of more than one account as if there were more than one person involved, when it's really only one. Now, if decisions are not made by vote, one wonders exactly what is wrong with this, but decisions *are*, in spite of guidelines, often made by some consideration of votes, and there are rules that mostly apply to Wikipedia, not here, about revert warring, where someone may gain an advantage by pretending to be more than one person. What you -- and/or your relatives or friends -- did here was relatively harmless, because a closing bureaucrat can notice that there are single-purpose accounts participating and simply discount these. Nobody was fooled to think that the votes were truly independent.

One user seems to have concluded from "checkuser evidence" that one account, at least, was actually you, though, in fact, what the evidence showed was not inconsistent with your story, i.e., a relative visiting you. But for that relative to vote for you would then be considered abusive, as if the person was simply doing what you wanted them to do, i.e., like sock puppetry, but through another person. "Meat puppet," since he's not a sock, but a real, different person. Let me tell you, Wikipedia can get *very strange.* In my view, the very term "meat puppet" is uncivil, but ... it's what is used.

I strongly recommend you focus on your education, and, on the wikis, on simply contributing; back off from any conflict, let others defend you or just let it be. You may want to clean up all the socks, even if they are harmless, like meta:User:Extinct Birds. Looks like that account was never used, other than to create the user page. You disclosed who you were. If you are going to work cross-wiki, however, it's better to use one account, and I think someone did point to that meta page as if there were something wrong with it. I'd recommend establishing that you are the user, by logging in to that account on meta, and request deletion of the page. If you need help, ask. --Abd (discusscontribs) 20:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


I am planning on running for adminship after I am done "Semi-Retiring" Wikiversity. Do you have any suggestions or comments? --goldenburg111 (talk) 22:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

You've been doing good work lately, and I appreciate it. However, my personal perspective is that it may be too soon to run. If you run, people will refer back to edits such as Based on Special:Contributions/, that's almost certainly you or someone you go to school with. There's also the issue of having multiple accounts, one of which is globally blocked. You also seem to come and go here at Wikiversity every few months. I personally would prefer to see custodians with a longer consistent edit history, and fewer ruffled feathers along the way.
I truly believe that the best way to become a custodian is to wait and be nominated by someone else, particularly someone who would be willing to mentor you after you become a candidate. Until then, just keep doing what you've been doing recently, helping others and cleaning up where you can. Thanks! -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 23:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I think you have seen that edit. We have visitors coming all the time at our house, so it may be one of them, and the globally blocked account: That account must have gotten out of hand and must have been controlled by another user, or it was me when I was younger. I cannot really tell, the popping out of nowhere. That has stopped, I am going to stay here without have anymore breaks, and yes, I am fully aware that I am retired. But the retiring may not happen again since Meta is slowing down a bit. But yet, I still will be Semi-Retired. Thank you for responding! Please, if you have anything to say about this, just comment below. --goldenburg111 (talk) 23:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Another thing, I'll (if you don't want me to) see what Sidelight12 and Jtneill say. Thanks! --goldenburg111 (talk) 23:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
We all keep learning and growing. There's nothing wrong with that. But trust takes time. - You're welcome to ask others. Note that only full (confirmed) custodians can mentor. Sidelight12 isn't a full custodian yet, and neither am I. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 00:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • The IP for the edit to the Jasper Deng user page is used by Maybeury Elementary School and possibly other schools in the area . There could be many different people using this IP. Yes, some of the edits from 2012 look like Goldenburg edits. But that's much less clear for this September, 2013, edit.
  • Goldenberg did use multiple accounts, not surprising considering the times and his condition then. My advice to him is to make it so that those days are over. He now has some acknowledged socks, I'd recommend he be careful about using those. Even though it's allowed, that doesn't mean it's advisable. There was at least one of the older accounts that was globally locked (not banned) in 2011, but that could have been appealed; I decided to let it be, because it was causing no particular harm, other than a little confusion that wasn't anticipated then. (Other lock requests were denied.)
  • (Normally, global bans of named accounts are not granted except through locking, an inflexible process. The use of a global lock on Goldenberg accounts was not in accord with policy, the necessary extensive cross-wiki disruption was not shown. The request was made on meta for accounts that were only active on Wikiversity, without any notice here. The user who did that, rather abusively, is no longer active.)
  • The 2013 edit linked with the insult doesn't look like a Goldenburg edit, necessarily, because other cross-wiki edits around that time are anachronistically primitive. By September of this year, Goldenburg would not be experimenting with the Wikipedia sandbox in that manner,
  • Goldenberg, those edits were not coming from your home, and your visitors, instead they were coming from your school. Anyone who used a computer at that school to edit one of our wikis would have an address like that. If you edit from a school computer, in fact, and if others use that same computer in a problematic way, you could get blamed for it. Checkuser, if performed, would show that the edits were likely the same computer, which will sometimes be considered as if they were the same user. If school computers on the school network have the same operating system and the same browser, this could make it seem strongly "the same."
  • That does lead to a suggestion. Use your most-established account to edit only from home. Use a different account, which you would disclose, to edit from the school computer only. You would disclose this on your user pages. However, don't ever edit thinking that it won't be known who you are, as the editor, if you aren't logged in. It might be known, and it might be assumed (even if the assumption could be incorrect.)
  • Edits to the wikis, including vandalism, are much more likely from a school computer than from a visitor at your home. --Abd (discusscontribs) 20:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I strongly oppose adminship at anytime on any wiki for this user. Anyone with that record of sockpuppetry and immaturity is automatically disqualified, in my opinion. He cannot be trusted to see deleted edits. On other wikis, sockpuppetry alone is an automatic disqualification for adminship, for good reason.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate that User:Goldenburg111 evokes strong opinions from many users in the Wikiversity community. However, I would ask that any additional comments be reserved until such time as there is a nomination to discuss, and then that the debate be held on the appropriate page. Thanks! -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 04:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't know about "many users." Some. Yes, the original behavior of this user raised obvious concerns. However, when the age of the user became clear, the behavior was readily understood as normal immaturity. Wikiversity has a different purpose than other WMF wikis, and its purpose, from the beginning, includes learning by doing, and, in fact, educating very young users has been a project here. Instead of blaming and rejecting this user, and blocking him, which is what some WV users were doing, I welcomed him and invited him to channel his editing into his own learning projects, which he mostly did, occasionally erring by creating mainspace pages, which was easily addressed, and he cooperated. If we were to be judged by our behavior as children, we would all fall short. Fortunately, we don't expect children to be little adults.
When his accounts were blocked, sometimes for "vandalism," he did what any smart kid would do: reboot the modem and create a new account. He created play roles, other accounts. He may have done this fairly recently, I'm not sure. But he is still only about ten years old. He is amazing, for his age.
Most child-vandals don't edit Wikiversity, and are addressed in the same way as adult vandals. I sometimes wonder if we might reduce general vandalism on Wikipedia by inviting possible child-vandals -- basically scribblers -- to come and register here and create fun essays in their user space. It's quite clear to me that his welcome at Wikiversity led Goldenburg to become a budding editor, willing and increasingly able to help.
The Goldenburg affair made clear to me that some Wikiversity users did not understand the purpose of Wikiversity, having a narrow concept of it. Some of these users were here to "help," not to, themselves, build educational resources. Nothing wrong with helping, but when the janitor or campus cop starts making decisions about what is trash and what is educational, instead of those actually involved in the educational process, something has gone south.
Absolutely, comments opposing adminship for Goldberg, other than the kinds that were already expressed there, i.e., "not ready," -- nobody here disagrees with this --, are quite inappropriate, and could be considered gratuitously uncivil. Had we been encouraging Goldenberg to apply, the matter would be different. --Abd (discusscontribs) 13:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Goldenburg is still a child, and everyone was immature at some point in their lives. The meatpuppets could have really been people he really knew, who were asked to give a good word for him. Goldenburg's edits have become better, and I do not see the behavior that was complained about anymore. The editor may not be ready, but he is a lot closer. Goldenburg is capable of one day becoming an admin on any wiki. - Sidelight12 Talk 12:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
I have seven children, five are fully grown and I have six grandchildren. I thank Sidelight for this comment, which assumes good faith at a deep level that can encompass "inappropriate behavior." If a parent fixes a child in his or her mind as "bad," because they do something considered inappropriate, the child may go on to model that. When WMF users and administrators do this, we create "bad users." We have created, through dramatic response, "disruptive editors," far beyond what might have happened with a more balanced response. The Scibaby sock farm (it was about a thousand socks several years ago) was created through administrative abuse, which Wikipedia never addressed. (Never look back, has been claimed to be a policy. Ancient history. I've seen quite recent events, part of a long-term pattern, called that.) Some people do not take it well, being blocked while others with worse behavior, but merely a more popular point of view, are tolerated or even encouraged. So these people create a hobby: poking Wikipedia. It's obvious that they have great fun doing it. --Abd (discusscontribs) 13:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Jasper Deng, excuse me Mr. Deng? But is there anyway I can help or make it up to those days? Plus, I am a rollbacker on the Simple English Wiktionary, and Bad-Mouthing or Backbiting is uncivil, same thing with this; A very uncivil comment. --goldenburg111 (talk) 16:39, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Again, I appreciate that this conversation stirs passions all around, and I believe I understand both perspectives. I have been personally offended by some of Goldenburg's comments and also quite impressed with his progress. But my talk page is not the place for this discussion. Please use your own pages for this, or his. Thanks! -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 16:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Dave. Goldenburg, just drop it. I will write a little more on your Talk page. --Abd (discusscontribs) 19:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
We can move this discussion to my talk page. --goldenburg111 (talk) 20:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Goldenburg111: Thanks for the advice that I post Equation Style Proposal on the Colloquium--guyvan52 (discusscontribs) 00:02, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

No problem Vandegrift! --goldenburg111 (talk) 00:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
As starter of this discussion, I have now ended the discussion. Thank you --goldenburg111 (talk) 22:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion Alternatives

When you come across someone else's page that you think should be deleted, rather than {{delete}}, consider whether you should use {{prod}}, {{rename}}, or {{move}} instead. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 00:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Are you allowed to set up your own date when using {{prod}}? --goldenburg111 (talk) 00:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Technically, it would be possible to alter the date, but you would have to future or back-date the entry to do it. A better alternative, if you really think 90 days is too long to allow people to make improvements, would be to propose changes to the template at Wikiversity_talk:Deletions. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 01:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

about that odd welcome

Regarding your edit removing a welcome template from a vandalism-only account.

[2] was a comment I made to the user who gave the welcome. It is not uncommon that a user gets the idea to welcome all new accounts, identifying them from the new account log.

However, that does cause a small problem. One may normally be able to notice a vandalism-only account partly by the redlink for the user Talk page. I.e., those on vandalism patrol may look especially at the first edits of an account. If it's a good edit, or at least reasonably harmless, the patroller may decide to welcome the account. That then removes the redlink.

It's not reliable, and it could be gamed, obviously, yet it mostly works. But when someone welcomes just on registration, you see what happened here.

However, I've seen welcomes provided on meta just on registration. Personally, I've found being welcomed like that a bit odd. I haven't done anything but sign up for an account.

In this case, a user who has disappeared after using Wikiversity to solicit students to sign up for for-pay classes, welcomed a user who had vandalized pages.


The welcome template was added 20:23, 14 June 2011 after all those vandalism edits‎. Obviously, the user only looked at the account log, not at the contributions.

From the user's contributions, for June 14, 2011, You can see that the user -- now blocked -- was doing that.

By the way, in theory, we block to prevent harm, not to punish. Blocking someone who has not edited for a year would generally be seen as punitive, not preventative. However, the custodian did leave talk page access open to the user. Normally, though, if someone is engaging in inappropriate behavior, there would be a warning before a block and there would only be a block if the problem behavior continued. There was, indeed, a warning, but the custodian appears to have then changed it to a block, without there being any more on-wiki misbehavior. As well, shutting off the ability of the user to email simply invites the registration of a sock for that purpose, and detecting this could be quite difficult. It is ordinarily done only upon complaint, or a community decision that there is harm to the community from allowing email access. Note that any user with email enabled can still email this user. And the problem user can then email them back, directly. --Abd (discusscontribs) 23:45, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Given that the vandal was warned, the welcome template was harmless, probably should not have been removed. --Abd (discusscontribs) 23:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, the thing is. Like you mentioned, the user should have not welcomed the user as soon as he popped up on the account log. Well, a welcome literally says "Hey, you made such wonderful edits and you should be proud". The user who welcomed the vandal-only account should have not just welcomed him, he/she should have waited for him to do some edits. But it looks like the user got out of control anyway. --Goldenburg111 (talk) 15:20, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Privacy Concern

An admin on another wiki has contacted me regarding a privacy concern. Nothing to be alarmed about, but something I would like to explain in more detail. Unfortunately, I can't explain here without drawing attention to it. Can you contact me by email and provide another way I can share information with you? If you'd like to remain anonymous to me, you can use Special:Preferences to set an email address so I can contact you instead. We can also work through Abd if you'd prefer to trust him with your contact information. Thanks! -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 15:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Can you give me more information about this? This is not sufficient information to fully comprehend you. BTW, I don't have email. --Goldenburg111 (talk) 18:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I was being intentionally vague. See COPPA. Specifically, COPPA applies to 'persons under age 13', and the 'definition of personal information after July 1, 2013, also includes geolocation information, as well as photos, videos, and audio files that contain a child’s image or voice'. Any personal information that would violate COPPA needs to be removed for the protection of those under 13, or who were under 13 at the time the information was collected. If you are aware of any information that might violate COPPA for anyone, feel free to use the link above to send me an email message with details. I'll make sure it gets cleaned up. Thanks! -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 22:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay, you can look at my trash box. Pages such as the Aqib Aze Show. --Goldenburg111 (talk|contribs) 23:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm going to disagree with the interpretation of COPPA being followed. COPPA does not apply to all web sites. It explicitly, it appears, applies only to web sites that are "'directed to children' under 13". I have two children in that category, and when they signed up at game sites that were directed to children, parental permission was required (though there was no way for them to actually know that it was the parent they were dealing with). When they signed up for Instagram, no such permission was required. And my daughter, 12, puts up photos copiously. Instagram is not "directed to children." From the Wikipedia article:
Mark Zuckerberg, co-founder and CEO of Facebook, has expressed opposition to COPPA and stated "That will be a fight we take on at some point. My philosophy is that for education you need to start at a really, really young age."[26]
  • How about we also take that stand? COPPA does not appear to apply to us. I find it ridiculous that this user is essentially being asked to identify himself so that we can enforce a law that only applies to us, potentially, if we collect that information. *We do not collect personal information on users, of any age. I personally concluded what age the user in question is, from what he had put up, but the WMF is not responsible for that. I did act, back in 2011, to remove and even revision delete what appeared to be names of children (age assumed from appearance in photos). That was purely for his protection, and he cooperated.
  • If there is a WMF policy, by the way, we are not obligated to enforce it. We may not prevent enforcement by WMF officers. I have no intention of doing anything that would harm the WMF, but if anyone asks the WMF legal counsel, they might well find that if the WMF takes responsibility for content, and for determining the age of users, it will open a whole can of worms. It would have to "collect personal information on users," to know what age they were. Or it would have to designate a responsible officer, to scan the user contributions, to see if there were clues to the user's age.
  • I would be personally be sad to see that early Goldenberg work deleted. This was a very young user learning to write wikitext, expressing himself. You can see in his communications now how much he learned. He is far beyond normal for age in maturity of expression. I know, I have a daughter who is his age. She does, by the way, have a public blog, with photos of her with a famous soccer star. Her mom approved, but I don't think she had to give permission formally. Blog sites are not generally "directed to children."
  • Dave, someone, somewhere, overreacted. Not the first time I've seen that. ==Abd (discusscontribs) 03:26, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I kept researching this, I noticed that Xanga was fined a million dollars for COPPA violation. What had they done?
From [3]. Xanga stated that under 13s couldn't join, but then provided accounts to those who indicated that they were under 13 on the sign-up form (ie. the user's birth date made them a child). In Xanga's defense, however, they did require all users to tick a box verifying that they were over 13. Xanga's mistake was that they didn't check the birth date - a user whose birth date suggested they were a child would still be given an account if they ticked the box. Over the last five years, Xanga has created 1.7 million accounts for users who entered an age of less than 13.
  • Or made a mistake entering the birth year! Point to notice: no collection of "personal information," including age, no liability. My conclusion is that the WMF has no liability here, at all. Instagram does not collect age information, which is how they can have millions of children posting photos of themselves.
  • Looking closer to home, I found this Wikia discussion. Wikia elected to require all users to be 13 or over, but does not collect age information, it's just part of the TOS and may have been a checkbox. I don't know what the current policy is there, but the problem was that some Wikia wikis are apparently

"directed to children."

  • There is no barrier to any child registering on a non child directed WMF wiki. If the barrier existed, then the WMF could become responsible for verification. Nightmare.
  • I also read the FTC site. Sites that collect personal information on users that would allow them to determine the age of the user can become responsible for COPPA compliance. It seems that you are, here, attempting to collect such information. You and I are not the owners of this site, the WMF is. We have no authority to collect this information ourselves. I have never asked this user for personal information. This is a very hot topic, dangerous, in fact. We should be strictly hands off as to any kind of COPPA enforcement. It has major legal implications. The WMF Privacy Policy does not mention age.
  • Just to check, I just registered a new account on Commons, a site which hosts content which may not be appropriate for children. There is no personal information collected, period. There are no terms of use that are agreed to on registration, but only when an edit is saved. There is nothing in the TOS that is relevant here. The only personal information that is collected is an email address, which is private. It is not obligatory.
  • Looking for any WMF guidance on COPPA, I found only a statement by John Vandenberg at [4]. He wrote that "If my memory serves me correctly, WMF projects are not legally required to comply with COPPA due to our non-commercial nature." He proposed that the software incorporate COPPA compliance in an extension, presumably because someone might want to use the software for child oriented site.
  • An old post on meta was quite specific:
[22]Anthony asked about the effects of COPPA (an American law on child privacy) on Wikimedia projects. Kelly Martin suggested that the foundation, being nonprofit and not engaged in commerce, is exempt from COPPA. Geni provided a pointer to a quick government guide to COPPA that suggests Wikimedia may not be exempt, and Kelly Martin noted that as the foundation does not collect information, instead just providing a space for their creation, COPPA does not apply.
  • So. my suggestion: drop this like the hot potato that it could be. I was once dinged on Wikipedia because I wrote an encouraging note on an underage user's Talk page. Requesting email contact with an underage user, as if it were somehow a necessity, could be considered suspicious. I don't doubt your sincerity, Dave, but you were sent on an errand that could have seriously harmful consequences. What was this "admin"s interest? There are a lot of very weird people who end up, for a time, as administrators. —Abd (discusscontribs) 04:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

The item of concern has already been resolved. The only issue I see going forward is that we should remind any users under age 13 that they are not legally allowed to release any personal identifying information as defined by COPPA on any websites. This is for their protection. Thanks! -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 14:08, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Thanks, Dave. The reminder you suggest is not true. Case in point: Istagram is a web site. Users reveal personal information, all the time. No legal consequences, either for the web site or for the user. I did describe why. In any case, we may create a local privacy policy, but I'd be very careful about creating a situation where COPPA does apply. It does not apply here, period, not unless we set up circumstances to make it apply. I recommend that any age–related policy come from the WMF, after consultation with legal counsel. It really could be a nightmare. This is not a job for amateurs.
  • It is entirely another matter to advise young users to be careful about revealing personal information. As a sysop, I did act to revision–delete such information, in a way that did no harm to the user. (The user cooperated by converting full names to first name/last name initial, and then I revdel'd the old revisions.) That one user may figure out from posted information and other evidence (I looked at IP addresses, for example) that a user may be under 13 does not create an obligation for the WMF. Any sort of organized data collection, such that the WMF would become legally aware of the age, would create that obligation, and it is such an onerous burden that wikia essentially required users to state they were 13 or older, and did not collect birth dates to verify. ––Abd (discusscontribs) 18:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I should have clarified as without parental consent. Instagram does not allow users under 13. See . Many other sites have the same limitation for similar reasons. But the intent in this situation was to protect the user rather than the organization. If the user is now fully informed regarding the issue and wants to post / repost personal information, that's up to the user, and his or her parents if s/he is under 13. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 23:47, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

You appear to be right. I hadn't seen the TOS that is available on the web. Instagram was originally installed on my iPhone. My daughter has an email account on a domain of mine. The app was originally downloaded from the Apple store on my phone, and installed there, but by my daughter. I could look at her Instagram page any time, as if I were her. The phone doesn't know the difference and doesn't have multiple users, I think. Technically, this may be violating their TOS. She now has her own smart phone. She set it up completely, from Google play, I think. Did she state her age? When she got her own phone, I created my own Instagram account, and I don't recall any questions about age, but maybe it is just a statement in the TOS that you must be 13.
Notice the effect of COPPA: children are not allowed to use the service. Not merely protected, *prohibited*. That is what Zuckerberg was talking about.
[5] gives the instructions for creating an account. There is no mention of age. There is a mention of a profile. It does not appear to have an age field. One might state in text in a bio, but that wouldn't necessarily be set up to flag age even if revealed. So ... I looks like Instagram handled the COPPA problem by waving a magic wand, a few words in a TOS that nobody reads. But I haven't checked. The WMF is not going to prohibit users under thirteen, my guess. And it has no way of actually knowing a user's age, beyond, say, those with the checkuser privilege, who must identify to the office and that could possibly cover the matter. Twelve year olds don't generally have drivers' licenses.
However, the instructions for parents indicate that they will not remove an account without *proof* that the person is underage. It could be a nuisance, but a parent could do that, if they have a birth certificate *and* can connect it with the account. Bottom line, Instagram appears to have no procedure in place to verify compliance with their TOS. My daughter is twelve. She could be thirteen, how would anyone tell? My guess is that they will not use appearance as a guide. Now, David, why are we getting involved with this mess? Write me offwiki if you would prefer, I'll stop here. ––Abd (discusscontribs) 03:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


What did you have in mind for a Texas project? - Sidelight12 Talk 20:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

You mean the appearance of the project? --Goldenburg111 (talk|contribs) 21:18, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


Do not put any comments from Abd on my talk page or restore material that was removed. You do not have the right to do such, and Abd has a long standing prohibition from contacting me. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:05, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Of Course, sowwy. --Goldenburg111 (talk|contribs) 15:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Ottava is correct about general practice. His right to avoid response from me when he talks about me on his own talk page is less clear, but I certainly won't attempt to force him to do anything. Never, ever, revert war with a user on his own Talk page. I was in the conversation, and he showed that he saw what I wrote, if that should ever become important, by removing it. Foolish or not, he had the right to remove it. I also had the right to respond to him if he gratuitously attacked me. He had done so when I was blocked, and repeated it.
If it becomes necessary, i.e., if Ottava repeats the behavior that led me to comment on his Talk page, I will either ignore it, or take the matter to the community for resolution. Better, generally, if I don't do the latter, but I'll make that choice at the time. Someone else may also bring it to community attention, but please don't take that task on, it could be like poking a hornet's nest.
You are not in trouble. You made a mistake, easy to do from lack of experience. Just let it go, and, my advice, leave Ottava alone. It could be said that you provoked him to respond as he did. I don't think that was your intention. ––Abd (discusscontribs) 18:37, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

User page

Hello, I have cut out the part about being a rollbacker at the Simple English Wikipedia as you are not anymore, because you were blocked as a sockpuppet of Aaqib. Reception123 (discusscontribs) 08:56, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Hands off his user page, Reception123. As I wrote in the edit summary, undoing your change, he may call himself a pink elephant on his user page if he likes. He will remove the listing if he chooses, and we will only intervene if harm is being caused. Meanwhile, that block reason is silly, unless backed with recent disruptive behavior. If he wants to be unblocked on Simple English, I'm pretty sure it can be arranged. I have not investigated the SE process yet. I will. —Abd (discusscontribs) 15:36, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
This was an error on Reception123's part. Goldenberg did not claim to be a rollbacker on the Simple English Wikipedia. The link was to Simple English Wiktionary, he was explicit, "I am a rollbacker on the Simple English Wiktionary", and Goldenberg is currently a rollbacker there.[6]Abd (discusscontribs) 15:45, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
I am very sorry for making the error, but once, a user claimed to be something he wasn't and someone directly reverted his edit. Why is the rule not affecting anything there? Reception123 (discusscontribs) 17:34, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
mmm.... I've read a rumor that Goldenburg111 is being harassed. I hadn't seen much evidence of that, mostly what I've seen is users who are clueless about who and what he is, and who react in predictable ways to what they don't understand. However, looking at your Wikversity contributions, I see nothing but actions against Goldenburg or related matters. You are new here, your first edit was in August, 2013. Other than edits to your own user page, I see only
(Draubb, next time a speedy deletion tag is put on something in mainspace, that isn't a suitable general topic for Wikiversity, please just move the page to user space yourself, if it is not actually a harmful page, then remove the tag. It will avoid disruptive discussion. Pages, after discussion, can easily be moved back to mainspace if that's considered useful by the community. RfD is for genuine disputes.
  • [8], in which you start a deletion discussion (as closed, [9])for what is now User:Goldenburg111/Assistant Safety Program, a page that arguably does have a place in mainspace, particularly if edited and perhaps better placed. Jtneil moved it to user space because this readily resolves dispute, it can always be moved back later. Goldenburg, don't do this on your own!
There is a pattern here. It appears that you are not here to contribute to Wikiversity, but only to harass Goldenburg111, identifying some of his work, creating disruption over it, and looking for errors to "correct." That's called wikistalking. Stop it. I will drop a warning on your Talk page, and I suggest, strongly, hands off Goldenberg111. If there is some serious problem, notify me on my Talk page, I'll check it out. Goldenburg makes mistakes, it's normal in his condition. It is very much part of the learning process. I'd think that users on Simple English Wikipedia would understand that, but apparently not.
Now, you asked a question about reverting errors on a user talk page. Let's suppose you had been correct, i.e., that the user had been a rollbacker on SEW, and was then blocked, with the privilege presumably removed. (That wasn't the case even there, Aaqib was never granted rollback.) It's up to him to remove it. One might point out an error on the user talk page. If a user is blocked here, it might be done for the user, but, of course, that doesn't apply.
For very good reasons, we respect user's rights to maintain their own user pages. I correct errors on user pages, but only where there is no issue or likelihood that the user might object. It's a courtesy to allow users to correct their own errors. You might notice that Goldenburg added a template recently to my own user page. That wasn't necessarily proper, but it was harmless.
In context, given what you had previously done here, such an edit, pointing out in the edit summary that he is blocked elsewhere, could be expected to be seen as hostile, and that is, in fact, how I saw it. Reviewing the history, now, I'm even more convinced of the hostility. It's a rebuttable conclusion. Show some support for the user, as others have, and it will vanish. I've been demonstrating, here on Wikiversity, how to handle a user whose "disruption" matches the old pattern of this user. It's been working.
That something has been done once, and stood, establishes no precedent on wikis unless the action is broadly discussed. The strong tradition is respect for user rights on their user pages. —Abd (discusscontribs) 19:03, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

@Reception123 Why don't you correct yourself? Don't you have a lot to think about at SEW? --Goldenburg111 (talk|contribs) 18:19, 25 December 2013 (UTC) @Abd Thank you Abd for clarifying Reception. --Goldenburg111 (talk|contribs) 18:19, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Suggestion to Goldenburg: Slow down, particularl when you notice yourself getting angry. There is a tradition from the Prophet (SAS), that once Abu Bakr, RA, I think it was, was being verbally attacked in the masjid. He remained silent. Then, after it became too much for him, he responded, defending himself. The Prophet, as I recall, commented that when Abu Bakr was remaining silent, the angels where defending him, and when he talked back, they left. Or was it 'Umar, RA?
  • Anger gets us into trouble. It's only useful in immediate situations of extreme danger. Not here. —Abd (discusscontribs) 19:09, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
I will try to settle myself down. --Goldenburg111 (talk|contribs) 19:19, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Simple English Wikipedia

Okay, from the claim of Reception123, I'm looking at Simple English WP. Yes, Goldenberg111 is blocked there.[11].

I see no warning on the Talk page. There is a reference to a community ban and failure to follow process, on Goldenberg111's talk page.[12] The administrator denying unblock may be technically correct — but is assuming a not established identification with Aaqib, but doesn't seem to know what happened. Even if Aaqib is Goldenberg (see below), Goldenberg111 is a global account, the only one, as far as I know, being used currently. He did not "create another account," per se. Goldenberg111 was renamed from an older account, Draubb.

The ban discussion on SEW was for user Aaqib.[13]

Account Aaqib was only apparently active for a few days on SEW,[14] making some of the comments on the SEW ban discussion seem very strange. Looking at the contributions, I suspect this is not Goldenberg111. He has previously claimed that there were other family members active. I'd always wondered if this was true. (Basically, immature humans sometimes lie. As a parent, I need to know that and not go ballistic when it happens, it's normal, developmentally. Yes, we expect that stage to be transcended.) From the AN ban request, one would have thought there would be a huge pile of disruptive edits. Reading the AN report, though, it seems there may be deleted contributions. That would be RevDel. Looks like RevDel is freely used on SEW, which then makes community review of a situation difficult to impossible. Since the contributions of Aaqib only appear to start on 3 July at 17:29, and the AN ban request was only filed on 4 July, I suspect that "nuke contributions" is a sysop command available on SEW that is not available here, AFAIK. (That command appears on the contributions display, it is actually Nuke [username].) However, the MediaWiki nuke command, which I've seen, is a mass deletion command. It's rarely used. Essentially, if a user is creating many useless pages (which the old Goldenberg might have done), they can all be deleted with a single command. But this, then, makes it very easy to fix a problem, not the massive headache described on SEW AN.

I noticed a comment that referred to a specific edit as being beyond the pale: [15]]. Let's say that SEW may have its own culture. That edit was *normal* on other wikis, where "wtf" is commonly used instead of the milder "what the heck" that Aaqib used. While this could be Goldenberg, there are some similarities, that could also be quite what Goldenberg claims: a family member, familiar with what Goldenberg is doing, and trying to do the same. Happens in families all the time.

I see plenty of signs that Aaqib is not Goldenberg111. So, how was it determined that these are the same editor? Aaqib denied being Draubb (Draubb, for others, was renamed to Goldenberg111). A global admin commented there with the apparent belief that Draubb and Aaqib were the same editor, referencing Draubb's custodian candidacy here.

There was this in the Draubb discussion:

Sorry, but I am OK (I am retiring). And Jasper Dang, who is Draubb? --Aaqib 12:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Just to sum up, this is my first wiki I have ever been to. And I usually am easily mad. --Aaqib 13:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you explain this then? Chenzw Talk 15:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

That is my cousin's actions. --Aaqib 15:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no evidence on the page cited by Chenzw, wrt the identification between Draubb and Aaqib. He appears to be simply citing his own opinion. (Family members might use the same computer, thus checkuser could come up positive. I don't recall if checkuser evidence was adduced in 2013. And we really don't need to know. If someone was unnecessarily blocked here, who wants to contribute, unblock can, I'm sure, be arranged. We aren't going to bother unless it will make a real difference.)

We know that Aaqib is a name likely used in Goldenberg's family. It may or may not be his real name. Aaqib Azeez has been used, here, as I recall. That could be his name or the name of another family member. On SEW, the user was originally Aaqib Waramchoi.

On Wikipedia, Aaqib Waramchoi created an account under that name. He referred on his user page to a "main account" on Wikiversity, but he did not give a specific user name there. There was possible sock activity here around that time. In any case, the first edit of Aaqib Waramchoi was May 23, which is consistent with the claim made by Aaqib on SEW that he'd only recently begun to edit the wikis. Goldenberg was editing two years earlier.

Editor Raninghai on SE Wiktionary looks like Goldenberg to me. If this is you, Goldenberg, I suggest you acknowledge the account. You could/should disclose all prior accounts on your user page. I've seen this be done on a subpage linked from your user page. Like User:Goldenberg111/Prior accounts. If you can log into Raninghai, you would also put that on the Raninghai user page, logged in as Raninghai, so the connection between the accounts is crystal clear. You do have many prior accounts, so I'd suggest you handle this, and only that page, you may also deny that you are certain accounts, if those were not you. Keep it simple, and just be truthful. On that page, if you did something truly improper, you can also acknowledge it. That's how we move on.

(If you don't want to disclose a prior account that you are no longer using, there is an alternate procedure, ask me and I'll suggest how to handle it. If you don't remember all the accounts, just say so. It won't matter if its old.)

Back to Chenzw's compilation page, the critical matter is the identification of Aaqib with Draubb (Goldenberg). I see nothing on the Chenzw page that supports the identity of Aaqib Waramchoi with Draubb. I'm very familiar with Draubb/Goldenberg111 edits, and while some similarities can be seen, there are also differences, plenty of them. If AW is Goldenberg111, he's partitioned his behavior, which is a very sophisticated technique for avoiding sock identification, which is practically preposterous applied to Goldenberg111. It's hard enough for highly experienced editors. Goldenberg has been gaining experience, but not that much experience!

Rather, it seems that the identification is based on very superficial signs, such as a quick request for advanced privileges, and some others like that.

There was comment on the Chenzw report: [16]. Goldenberg111 (Draubb) shows up there. He "wishes" that page deleted. It's a user page, and deletion could probably be arranged. Similar pages of mine were deleted on Wikipedia, even when they were actually used on local process. However, the saying is let sleeping dogs lie. Interesting pun, eh?

Goldenberg, here is an opportunity. If you were Aaqib there, just say so. If not, just say so. I caution you that the truth will not harm you, while what is other than the truth may. Just tell the truth, and trust it, and I'll add a religious twist: "The Truth" is another name for Allah, al Haqq. I'm essentially suggesting you trust in Allah. The Truth. Whatever the truth is. Nobody will die if you were Aaqib, nor if you were not. You will not be harmed here, either way.

(If truth seems to harm you, trust that it is not actually harm, it is only a shift in conditions. Hold on to trust, firmly.)

The Aaqib ban on SEW is only for a year. If Goldenberg111 wants to be unblocked there, I'd assist, particularly because Goldenberg111 could be a useful editor there. However, I'll add this caution: wiki editors, in general, don't like their errors pointed out. They sometimes accumulate resentment, and it can then come out in future processes. I'll think about this one. Just let me know, first, if you were or were not Aaqib. We can then move on from there to build a transformed future that can take us way beyond the past. —Abd (discusscontribs) 18:02, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I know Reception knows this. Yes, I am Aaqib. I regret lying. But I lied for my reputation on the Wikimedia Projects. Yes, again, I am Aaqib. But there was no warnings on my talk page, except for civility (I was rude with bolding). And, I don't care if Chenzw joins this discussion, but I dislike Chenzw for his manners. All with his bolding edits.
And yet, I do have to say. You cannot compare a child with an adult. That is my old new motto now. I did, sadly, reveal my age to the SEW community. And yet, they continued there ban discussion. No step-by-step blocks, just a big Yang-Ying block! My rage is at it's highest point now. Reception, I suspect you are under 12 as Dejassio mentioned at SEW. Anyway, back on track, I would, if Reception wants to, for Reception to put his input on by block. Many of my friends at SEW turned their backs on me and supported the ban discussion without stating their reason. Going along with the crowd, shame with them. That's not trust!!! That's being a coward!!! All the admins except a few severely disliked me and it really made me aggressive. --Goldenburg111 (talk|contribs) 18:29, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
I acknowledge the courage it took to admit lying. In this, you are more mature than many "adults." Here is what I suggest. You, above, are blaming others for what you did, that is, become angry. You write that they "made be aggressive." While it's true that you were reacting to them, if you stick with this idea, you then become a victim of their behavior, which is a terrible place to live. Take responsibility, take full responsibility, commit to your future, and then live according to that commitment. You can do this, I fully trust. You could blame them, and then they could blame you, similarly, i.e., what you did "made" them do what they did. There is no end to this cycle.
Rather, you are at your own stage of development. You will make mistakes. If you learn from them, you will move beyond them. It starts with "distinguishing" them. That is, "This is what I did. I was angry." and, if you have a commitment, "This is not what I am committed to." For example, "I am committed to cooperation, even with people who disagree with me or whom I don't like."
A daughter of mine has been diagnosed with a disorder that has, as a symptom, very strong reactions to certain kinds of situations. As a result, she was destroying, one by one, almost all of her relationships, and she was depressed, taking lots of medication, and still suicidal, while not much older than you. She ended up living with me, because she burned her bridges with her mother. I'd like to take credit for her turnaround, and perhaps I did encourage it by providing a very safe space for her, knowing that she needed total security, to start, but the biggest shift happened when she declared, "I am going to live the rest of my life to the fullest, unconditionally." And she knows what "unconditionally" means. It means regardless of whatever conditions she encounters, and in the context that she first said this, it meant "however awful it seems to me is the behavior of others." And she proceed to demonstrate this, with spectacular results, relationships are starting to heal, and she is obviously far, far happier. Over time, she will be challenged, it can be predicted. All her old stories about others, how she was abandoned, rejected, hated, will come up again. However, she now has a foundation from which to understand these, that she is responsible for how she deals with what she encounters, and she is responsible for how she interprets life.
As she understands herself and practices returning to the stand she declared, she will gain "velocity." I.e., she will get very fast at recognizing her own learned reactions, and able to let them go before they are even visible to others.
I'll agree with you about how it should be. Now, my bold and courageous friend, how are we going to build a world that is like this?
Those people became angry with you, and you with them. Start here: just let go! Have I explained the difference to you between "what happened" and "what we made it mean"? What happened, happened, that cannot be changed. But we create meaning. We tend to imagine that meaning is something that exists in the world, that all we do is to discover it. I.e, if we think someone was "rude," we think that's real. In fact, they said, "Blah blah." That's what happened, that is what is real. They may have intended to be rude or not. "Rude" is an interpretation. In a way, "You were rude" is rude. (Hey, my interpretation!)
Give yourself time, it will all become clear. And give them time, as well!Abd (discusscontribs) 19:41, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Astronomy barnstar

Hi Goldenburg111!

Thank you for your kindness of the astronomy barnstar! Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 19:16, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Your welcome. --Goldenburg111 (talk|contribs) 19:20, 25 December 2013 (UTC)