Template:UserTalkArchiveBox

Human Shields (law), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

SwisterTwister talk 00:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed the Genocide RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups in the hopes of generating responses from more uninvolved editors. Ethnic cleansing falls under the broader scope of the WP:ETHNIC project. As I've noted on the talk page of the 'Genocide' article, genocide topics have been one of the higher profile banes of the project for ages. Hopefully, it will generate enough interest for some decisions to be made as to whether the top level articles need to consider a better co-ordinated series of splits. In fact, I'd be pleased if a top level article could be decided on. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iryna Harpy Great - I did change the wording of the RfC but bot caught the first version, hopefully Legobot will update the listing? Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:08, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think so, but it's probably best to confirm this with Legobot on their talk page. You only dropped the template momentarily, so I'd guesstimate that all is well. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I think we might have gotten off on the wrong foot. I'm not at all opposed to including more Prince-related lawsuits on his page, as long as they're substantially about him, as opposed to his former company. In fact, I noticed a while back that there was at least one lawsuit about a book deal that at least merits discussion at Talk:Erik Prince. Working on that has been on my to-do list. And for what it's worth, I have been highly supportive of adding more extensive coverage of the Blackwater lawsuits to Academi. See this discussion.

As for your frustrations about how many RfCs there are at Talk:Erik Prince, yes, it is unfortunate that there have been so many. There have been some strongly held positions on that page, and sometimes an RfC is an appropriate way to resolve a dispute when editors are at loggerheads. That has nothing to do with article ownership or neutrality. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the recent discussion: The silent consensus is that, intent in the strict sense, such as in the case of an individual murder, is inapplicable in the case of genocide. Sangkul Kim thesis recycled what has been documented, it is plainly treated in the functionalism thesis (v intentionalism). The nation state has an existence of itself, and does not just react based on some politicians wishes and wants. Hilberg document this, when he treats the appareil of state as machine which possesses functions, following set of instructions (just as a computer would do). Intent requires some form of intentionality, something the higher organizational structures are incapable of (machines have no intent). Genocide (from its initial definition) is an untenable position, as the closest to intent one would go is equivalent to a second-degree murder (oblique intent), and only because there was human involvement in feeding the organization. Things become even more complex since as it was raised here, biological-physical destruction is not required because destroying a group is possible without any biological-physical destruction. It would be plausible when claiming millions of Sambadanians were destroyed to assume that the target was the social construct Sambadanians which was eliminated, regardless of any physical destruction. Technically, there are even ways to commit genocide without it to be a crime under any jurisdiction, if the target is solely a construct and the means aren’t material. This was implicitly covered in recent publications. So technically all models of genocide aren’t limited to what is criminal. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 19:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, but you haven't provided any sources. I think we are talking about different things - you are correct that some of this scholarship is non-legal in its analysis, and some of your analysis may be WP:OR. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to Sangkul Kim which work was cited in a discussion you had. I just reminded that this was already mentioned in Hilberg over 3 decades ago. My point was that genocide is always immoral, but not always criminal... it is arbitrary to just restrict the main to what is legal. As for WP:OR, it's beside the point, because I have not edited the article, neither posted in its talkpage. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 20:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I thought you were suggesting adding this material to the article. Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Seraphim System. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Hi. Sorry I have not commented much further on the above. I think you have done a fine job responding to your interlocutors. I saw no reason to add more. I have already made my position on the behavior clear. If you would like my feedback, or feel I can help you, please feel free to ping at the article. I'll keep watching. I'm not pleased that we have been obstructed from working on the article--an article which everyone agrees should exist. That's not collaboration. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Do you have any connection with another long-term editor with with with the same first name? --David Tornheim (talk) 12:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Tornheim This is my only account. Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yo, Seraphim System, pardon me if I'm reading too much ambiguity into that answer, but David Tornheim asked if you had any connections with another user, not other accounts. So strictly his question remains unanswered. Cheers, — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 16:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to that is also no, I don't think I have ever interacted with User:Seraphimblade outside noticeboards. Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even know Seraphim System existed until a few weeks ago, when someone briefly mistook me for them. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Seraphim System! In some discussion, I noticed there is a slight markup error in your signature. It doesn't affect the display but it confuses text editors. The current syntax is:

[[User:Seraphim System|<span style="font-family:Candara; color:#cc00cc; text-shadow:#b3b3cc 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">'''Seraphim System'''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Seraphim System|<span style="color:#009900">talk]])</span></sup> 03:51, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

And the correct syntax would be:

[[User:Seraphim System|<span style="font-family:Candara; color:#cc00cc; text-shadow:#b3b3cc 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">'''Seraphim System'''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Seraphim System|<span style="color:#009900">talk</span>]])</sup> 03:51, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Hope this helps. Kind regards, — JFG ^talk 15:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JFG: Fixed, thank you. Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Seraphim System. It's only been a couple of weeks since you filed an AE[1] which was strongly criticized by experienceded admins and other users. You didn't seem to accept any of the criticism, but called it, sweepingly, "wikilawyering by our admins".[2] A couple of uninvolved admins mentioned blocking you as possibly appropriate; I myself wrote that "if Seraphim System wasn't a fairly new user I'd propose a short block for a frivolous AE filing."[3] I hoped you'd take those reactions as warnings, but seemingly not, because you've now filed an if possible even more frivolous SPI.[4] (For more usefulness, I'm linking to the last version before the SPI was courtesy-blanked by DoRD "due to the report being completely baseless" — an unusual action at SPI, and a strong statement from a CheckUser.) The SPI seems to have been a continuation of an angry content dispute on Talk:Environmental justice and coal mining in Appalachia between on one side you, and on the other side the two established editors you then accused of socking, Jytdog and StAnselm. I note especially that you said on the talkpage that you would go to SPI, and StAnselm actually tried to warn you by giving you some evidence that he and Jytdog far from always agree with each other.[5] That was quite nice of him; some people in his position would have been content to sit back and enjoy the show, but he actually tried to save you from embarrassment. To no avail: you went ahead and posted the SPI anyway. It was "declined with prejudice" as lacking sufficient credible evidence for a CheckUser to even look at the complaint. Again, the unanimous criticism didn't seem to make you question your conviction that you were right and everybody else wrong. Instead you declared that you would be writing to the Wikimedia Foundation to complain that your complaint hadn't been taken seriously (which you are of course free to do) and that "You can block me, or ban me, or do whatever you want - but trying to intimidate me into not making legitimate complaints about issues that we all know are systemic and part of a broken process around here is not going to work". That sounds ominously like you intend to proceed with further frivolous litigation the next time you're frustrated by a content dispute. Therefore I'm explicitly warning you: the next time you make a frivolous noticeboard filing, I will give you a lengthy block for persistent battleground behaviour and wasting editors' time.

Note that this does not mean you're not allowed to file complaints at noticeboards. You are; just not tit-for-tat complaints for revenge, or for getting at somebody you're in a content dispute with. (Or to express annoyance, at a different noticeboard, with an admin who had posted an AE comment you didn't like, as you did here.) Or for any other purpose that runs counter to what WP noticeboards are for. How, then, can you know in advance whether a complaint you make will be deemed frivolous and put you at risk of a block? Well, if studying what happened with the previous AE and SPI doesn't help, I suggest that the only safe way is to ask an experienced user you trust, preferably an admin, and abide by their advice. Bishonen | talk 16:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen: The fact that admins may not want to pursue something does not make it frivolous. I still suspect significant sockpuppetry, but it may not be the type of sock-puppetry that Wikipedia investigates. You and User:StAnselm needn't worry - this doesn't cause me any embarassment. Does that make my complaint as an editor frivolous? No I can't predict or be the judge of what will you think is frivolous, nor do I have any obligation to agree with what you think is frivolous. It is patently obvious that I have never intentionally filed a frivolous claim and I will continue to file claims that I think are meritorious, even if admins decline to sanction or enforce the rules in a particular case, calling an editors claims "baseless" "frivolous" and casting WP:ASPERSIONS about retaliatory motives is capricious behavior, even for our admin team. But we can revisit all this if and when it becomes necessary for me to appeal your block. My motivations do not determine wheteher a claim is meritorious or frivolous. As for what you are digging up from AE to justify giving this "warning" - in that case User:Shrike did violate the consensus clause - If I filed a claim against User:Shrike for something minor, like calling me a "POV-pusher" on a talk board in retaliation to a complaint he filed- that would be frivolous - but he straight up violated the consensus clause. That claim was meritorious, it doesn't matter when I filed it. I will absolutely raise all the relevant points to defend my actions, when appealing a block. I'm not going to lose my self-respect over this - saying "Note that this does not mean you're not allowed to file complaints at noticeboards" is meaningless - that is exactly what it means. Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I may butt in, I know nothing about these disputes but I think Seraphim System has a lot to add on Wikipedia, and it would be unfortunate if they received a long-term block for filings that are deemed frivolous or disruptive by the community . Seraphim, there is no loss of self-respect associated with choosing your battles wisely. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop you baseless accusations I didn't violated anything and admin consensus confirmed this.--Shrike (talk) 19:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shrike: Shrike, please don't comment on my talk page. There was no admin consensus, the complaint was withdrawn. You restored material that was removed and did not discuss your decision when I asked you about it on your talk page. The fact that it is not always clear what constitutes "reverted edit" does not make a claim frivolous. Perhaps it would be too broad to interpret the clause this way, and you should have prevailed, but this is a question that should have been resolved through discussion. It stems from a general problem with the wording of the consensus clause that the community is currently discussing. It's pretty clear this issue is anything but frivolous. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Complaints that raise procedural issues or raise open questions about how a policy should be applied should be resolved through discussion, not dismissed as frivolous. Obviously SPI was a mistake, because there is a very particular pattern the admins there are looking for, like accounts that recreate pages that have previously been deleted. I understand that now and I don't forsee that I will ever file another SPI claim- but the AE complaint was legitimate. These two incidents are not enough to establish a disruptive behavioral pattern that justifies the threat of a "lengthy block" - it seems like an excuse to sanction an editor who consistently maintains a high standard of conduct. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:54, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Some unsolicited comments and advice. I'll just make an economic point to your statement above that you'll continue to file complaints, even if admins decline because they don't find them meritorious. In the real world, when one files a legal complaint, there are associated costs. In the wiki world; there are no costs, except editor time. And Wikipedia has hundreds of policies and thousands of way to fun afoul of them. Thus, editor reputation is one of the main mechanisms to evaluate complaints (even though few people will admit it to your face). WP:BOOMERANG is one of the main mechanisms to impose costs on the person making the complaint. If you keep filing complaints which people don't find meritorious, you'll quickly gain a reputation as <insert one of Wikipedia's thousand policy violations>. This is a rational response in the Wikipedia context, however insane it might seem to you. In general, it's best to avoid litigation on Wikipedia and only press cases where you are relatively sure of the outcome. In other words, in the face of a million idiocies, one should "Keep Calm and Carry on". Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 23:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So basically if I make a complaint, an admin can just say it is "frivolous" and sanction me. In the real world, a reasonable person would have to know in advance what conduct is allowed and what isn't, vague accusations like "frivolous" are not allowed - we do not base decisions to sanction conduct on any individual's whims because that is considered arbitrary and permits abuse by those who are tasked with enforcing rules. I think Wikipedia as a whole needs to take this seriously - saying "Just don't make complaints about disruptive behavior because we will sanction you for it instead" is not acceptable. Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say: "don't make complaints about disruptive behaviour". I said that just because you consider something disruptive doesn't mean others will agree with you. Wikipedia is the ultimate postmodern institution, where truth is whatever you can get your contemporaries let you get away with, to quote Richard Rorty. I have told you, from experience, how the Wiki system works, and the reasons why it works that way. Nobody said Wikipedia was sane. How you proceed in this system is up to you. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 23:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To directly answer your question, yes, you can be completely in the right, and if the accused party is buddies with the right admins, you'll get sanctioned. Kingsindian is correct - don't file something unless you are absolutely certain that you're correct, and be prepared even then for it to backfire on you. You'll find if you're the type that creates content, that the riffraff will come out of the walls like vermin, leave their droppings all over the article, and then scream bloody murder if you try to fix it. Kingsindian is also correct on WP not necessarily being sane, too. It's not. The best advice I can give is to take a break if they start to get to you. GregJackP Boomer! 00:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the admins do not agree with me the correct response would be to find that no violation was occurred, and offer a brief explanation of how that decision that is grounded in policy, not threaten an editor with sanctions by arbitrarily determining that a complaint is "frivolous" - A good example why WP:BOOMERANG does not apply here: when I reported another editor for violating 1RR and the admin noticed that I had also violated the consensus clause. Thus, I was sanctioned for my policy violation, which would have been left unsanctioned had I not complained about the 1RR violation. But there was an underlying policy violation on my part that was revealed when my complaint was being investigated - it was not just based on the admin's personal feelings that a complaint I made was "frivolous." To put it in more formal terms then User:GregJackP did above, this basically allows admins power to sanction that is not limited by policy. That is not a good thing for Wikipedia, and if this is the case I think we should all talk about how this can be improved. I don't think I'm the only editor to have raised concerns about this. Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another real world example: Every once in a while someone decides to file a lawsuit against Chevron or Microsoft or some other mega-corporation. These cases are routinely dismissed for "failure to state a claim" - the judge offers a polite explanation which can usually be summed up as "Well, you raise some valid points, but you failed to state a claim" and the case is dismissed. We do not throw the people who filed the complaint in prison to teach them a lesson, on top of dismissing their complaint. Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:23, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, and there is absolutely nothing you can do about the admins. Once appointed, they hold the job for life. There are no recalls, no realistic options for getting rid of bad admins. GregJackP Boomer! 00:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, they don't, as per admin review and removal. Creeper Ninja (talk) 22:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know what it says. I also know that it is almost never followed. GregJackP Boomer! 00:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just popping by as I noticed that GregJackP is lending you a hand, and I'd be glad to reach out to you as well. It is at times difficult to create and defend content in Wikipedia on environmental issues and other social justice concerns; there are some pretty strong factions here, and at times one can inadvertently hit a hornet's nest. My take is that it helps to get to know more admins, as there are any number of people who have the mop and wield it wisely. Problem is, they are often overwhelmed by the work there is to do -- so many trolls, so little time. Focus on writing and sourcing good content, and if an editing dispute breaks out, one approach is to notify the relevant wikiprojects in a neutral fashion, which draws more eyes, but keeps you from accusations of canvassing. Montanabw^(talk) 05:38, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add to what MontanaBW said - if you avoid speculating/discussing/etc anything about the other editor's motivations, you'll have a lot stronger case. Sources, sources, sources. Always have the sources on your side. And not just one or two sources - stick with the side that has lots of sources behind it, be willing to set them forth without discussing the editors on the other side, and you'll be well on the way to getting the hang of Wikipedia. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Seraphim System complained at the Teahouse about my frivolous litigation warning and I responded there.[6] Bishonen | talk 15:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Borderline_personal_attacks regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Debresser (talk) 21:19, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Khan Shaykhun chemical attack. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Films by the Hollywood Ten, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Salt of the Earth (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask if this is your only account?

Thankyou, (1)AnotherNewAccount (talk) 21:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have just seen this so I assume that answer is affirmative. However, suspect you of being a sockpuppet of another editor, so...

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NorthBySouthBaranof. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (1)AnotherNewAccount (talk • contribs) 21:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Seraphim System (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

block is not preventative

Decline reason:

I see lots of procedural stuff, considerations about whether the check should have been made in the first place, however your refusal to answer whether it was you or not is sufficient for me to decline this request. Max Semenik (talk) 18:16, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Seraphim System (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The reviewing admin MaxSem is not a native English speaker and I was extremely emotional the night of this discussion - consequently the discussion is of a length that was likely unhelpful to MaxSem when he reviewed the initial unblock request. He was mistaken that I refused to answer whether it was me. I both acknowledged that it was me and explained that I understood at the time that it was foolish and juvenile and that I should not do it again. It is buried in the discussion, but I can point out the specific posts if needed. I thought I had already been blocked for it, but other users have told me the first block was for "triggering the edit filter" - I did not know what that meant until other users explained it during this discussion and noted that an experienced editor would have known not to do that. I will note that since then all of my edits have been constructive - I am working on GA review, and cleanup of articles, improving sources and generally improving content. For example, since I've been blocked I've created 6 13 articles by translating for foreign language wikipedia, and copy-edited major articles on that Wiki. I am asking for the block to be lifted because the block is not preventative or timely per the WP:BLOCK policy "where there is no current conduct issue of concern" also from our block policy "Deterrence is based upon the likelihood of repetition. For example, though it might have been justifiable to block an editor a short time ago, such a block may no longer be justifiable right now, particularly if the actions have since ceased or the conduct issues have been resolved" Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Block has already expired. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Unblock -- as stated here. The supposed sock (1001nightsx3 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)) was clearly a one time vandal, having made a total of one edit, serving no practical sock purpose whatsoever, and that had already been blocked over a month ago, and may have simply used the same IP address as Seraphim System. I do not see what preventative purpose this block serves, given that there is no evidence that Seraphim System was socking. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• No, David, they can't have simply used the same IP. CheckUsers don't just look at the IP used, not by a long shot. They have access to more information. Also the sock didn't make only one edit, as they triggered the edit filter one minute before the recorded contribution.[7] Seraphim System's only defence seems to be that the CU shouldn't have been run. I don't understand why they also say "not a sock", a protests-too-much position they seem to immediately abandon in favour of complaining their privacy was invaded. I'm sure it's a sock, but I won't review the unblock request. Another CU should preferably do that, to evaluate the weight of the complaint that the check shouldn't have been run. Bishonen | talk 05:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

• I don't know, Bishonen, could be a workstation terminal, could it not? El_C 05:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I checked and the account User:1001nightsx3 does, in fact, have only one edit. I don't have much more to say about that. The CheckUser results have not been made available to me - I think I have at times been able to edit when I was using a VPN, without realizing I was still connected to the VPN. Most of the time the VPN I use, which is a popular one, is blocked so I don't use it. But I think on two occasions I did send through several edits via proxy without realizing it. So, it could be any number of things. I have already emailed the Arbitration Committee, (I read somewhere that way the correct forum to appeal a CheckUser block). But the fact that a CheckUser was run under these circumstances is, I'm sure you can understand, extremely upsetting. It is an invasive procedure, and it is not publicly known what information they have access to. This should not have been done without very strong evidence of specific abuses per the Privacy Agreement I entered into with WMF when I created my account. Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:43, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Seraphim System, there is was the Audit Subcommittee (although maybe it doesn't exist and was a figment of my imagination this entire time). El_C 05:49, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have already emailed ARBCOM, so I am worried filing a second request could be a violation of WP:FORUMSHOP Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:02, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The CheckUser should not have been run in the first place. Seraphim System ^(talk) 04:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I presume that you deny making that vandal edit—Added: compared with this edit—Could someone else have been using your computer a month ago? El_C 05:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm I an a fan of Hannah Arendt, but that was not the basis for running CheckUser. Even if that had been presented as evidence of sockpuppetry, CheckUser is only allowed when needed to prevent damage to the encyclopedia. A Checkuser request based on the evidence "made a template, commented on RfCs, cleans up articles and provides policy justifications for edits" should have been unambiguously rejected. Even if the accounts were socks, which they are not, there was not a shred of evidence presented that they were being used abusively or destructively, which is required under the Privacy Policy. 07:30, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@El C: I don't have access to the CheckUser information. Is the issue my home ip, a vpn ip, or some identifying characteristic of my computer? I would need more information to respond appropriately. Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:47, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's not likely to happen. El_C 05:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphim, I notice that at no time have you actually denied making the vandal edit. If you didn't do it, I think it would be appropriate to make your denial explicit. StAnselm (talk) 05:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the issue. I am most concerned right now with finding out what information has been collected about me, whether and how that data will be destroyed, and the fact that the Privacy Policy has been violated. Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's an issue for me—can you address it please? El_C 06:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can tell you that my home ip is shared, so it is possible. I vaguely recall a 24 hour block where I could not access Wikipedia on this account, or through my ip, so I will assume it is my ip and not related to any VPN issues. It seems to me this issue was already adequately addressed with a short-term block, and in no way justifies the initial CheckUser. Yes, I made a template. Reviewing the history shows how much difficulty I had getting it working, and the basic template was copied Template:Cite court. You can compare them if you want to verify this. The reason I am well-versed in applying policy is because User:Eperoton spent a lot of time discussing with me when I was new to editing, which he has attested to in the comments to the SPI investigation, and because I have discussed the WP:RS policy with other experienced editors, in particular User:Snow Rise. Further, the accounts have posted at the same time and the incidental comments on RfCs for pages where I am uninvolved beyond commenting on the RfC is insufficient to establish a behavioral pattern. The assertion that a CheckUser is justified because I "use [policy] to further arguments" is ludicrous. Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:43, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What we are talking about here is WMF's privacy policy. Given the seriousness of the policy, consideration should be given to whether the CheckUser policy should be published in a format that is editable. The CheckUser policy is incorporated by reference into the main Privacy Policy (not editable, obviously.) - so, it should not change without adequate notice given to those who have agreed to the Privacy Policy. It currently states "[CheckUser] must be used only to prevent damage to any of the Wikimedia projects. The tool should not be used for political control; to apply pressure on editors; or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to check a user." I see there is an Ombudsmen commission set up for this, and I will be reporting these concerns to them. Seraphim System ^(talk) 07:00, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I appreciate your honesty. StAnselm (talk) 07:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) It seems to me there are two separate problems going on here. One is the privacy issue and Bbb23's decision to run CheckUser. The other is SeraphimSystem's bizarre refusal to answer the obvious question. "That is not the issue." Wrong, it is very much one of the issues. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I know, the edit seems inspired by Hannah Arendt. Echoing User:David Tornheim it looks like an isolated incident and the block doesn't seem to serve any preventative purpose. Seraphim System ^(talk) 07:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not good, Seraphim System. You have been evasive and obfuscating with the truth. You should have owned up to that vandalism from the outset. El_C 08:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To address your concern El_C, I honestly did not remember making a second account. Until I reviewed the diffs, I thought I had made that edit as an IP. I was still very new and while frustrated may have made a poor decision. User:Materialscientist did impose a short-term block for it, which I do remember, and I have not repeated it - so this block is clearly not preventative. It was an isolated incident that happened some time ago, there is no pattern and it is separate from the fact that my privacy has been violated, which I am very upset about. Seraphim System ^(talk) 08:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probably want to steer clear of mentioning ombudsmen too. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 08:30, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: The privacy violation is entirely separate from lifting the block, so not sure how that is relevant. I am not trying to have any evidence excluded from our considerations here, which are a separate matter. I am upset that a CheckUser was run, this was not part of the Privacy Policy that I agreed to and as an editor, I expect my privacy to protected under the terms of that policy. My understanding is the Ombudsmen is the correct place to report that. Even if the block is determined to be justified by our admins, running the CheckUser initially was not - and I am very upset about it. Privacy is very important to me. Also, I want to bring to their attention that they may want to consider whether the CheckUser policy should be locked from editing, as the Privacy Policy is. Seraphim System ^(talk) 08:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This may be offtopic, but what's so frustrating about Adolf Eichmann's cause of death so as to compel you to vandalise that field, I still can't fathom. El_C 08:42, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember, but I think it was unrelated to anything happening on the Eichmann page. I do remember I was heated, and calmed down during the block period, and decided to never do anything that stupid again. I'm not very good at it, and my technical competence is quite limited, so it was pretty clear at the time that repeating that behavior would only get me indeff'd. Not sure why SPI decided a preventative block was necessary based on one incident that happened over a month ago. Seraphim System ^(talk) 08:59, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've stumbled into this through an RFC this user has opened. I find this block to be excessive, the editor was accused of being a sockpuppet of user NorthBySouthBaranof, which was false. However the blocking CU found another user related to this account who appears to be a one time vandal. Now I will assume that these accounts are run by the same person, the offense of sockpuppetery requires more than just having two different accounts, sockpuppetery is; "The use of multiple Wikipedia user accounts for an improper purpose" I do not believe the situation here constitutes an "improper purpose" or at least not a conventional socking action. I see this as a one time vandal turned into a contributor caught because of an unfounded accusation, which is a bit funny. But I think any admin would unblock the vandal account if he had appealed the indef, if nothing for the sake of WP:ROPE, and the contribution history of this account suggests he is not gonna continue with the vandalism. One advise for Seraphim_System; stop dwelling on wether the CU was warranted or not, a genuine suspicion was raised and CU was run, this is not a court. But the only offense here is vandalism, not sockpuppetery. A good trouting is all that is needed here in my opinion. Darwinian Ape ^talk 09:33, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why I am dwelling on it is this: if WP will not enforce its own privacy policy, or ensure that those tasked with it do, how can I rely on them to enforce other parts of the policy - like not releasing my identity, or address, or other personal information? The complaint did not raise a genuine suspicion - CheckUser is invasive and only allowed where the behavioral evidence shows it is necessary to prevent destructive behavior. Clearly, I want an assurance that this will not happen again or I may have to withdraw from the project, for a number of reasons that I am going to keep private. I am not threatening legal action but I do want to be clear about this: the Privacy Policy is not like our usual discussions about WP:UNDUE or WP:RS. WMF has legal obligations to me under that Policy. (It also should not be editable by random editors for this reason.) How they decide to proceed is up to them, but I will certainly raise my concerns with them directly - when something like this happens, they must be made aware of it. Seraphim System ^(talk) 09:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And unrelated to all this, this is actually in the Privacy Policy: "Where community policies govern information, such as the CheckUser policy, the relevant community may add to the rules and obligations set out in this Policy. However, they are not permitted to create new exceptions or otherwise reduce the protections offered by this Policy. " Seraphim System ^(talk) 10:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser tool is entrusted to a handful of editors who has gained the trust of the community, and publishing CU data to a third person is absolutely forbidden. There is always a risk to be outed when you participate in a wiki or a forum. But the risk in Wikipedia is minimal, so minimal it could be considered a conspiracy theory of a tinfoil variety. I looked at the complaint and it seems to show a similar pattern of editing with NorthBySouthBaranof. That is not a crime of course, but it is grounds for a CU. Darwinian Ape ^talk 11:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly a bad block. There was no abuse of multiple accounts. It looks to me like the older account made a vandalism edit and was abandoned; there was no intent to deceive. The vandalism is not good, but it was a single edit (and probably the first). I know of many people, including bureaucrats, whose first edit to Wikipedia was vandalism (often of the juvenile kind). However, the block is within the discretionary power of CU.

As for Seraphim System, your private information is typically not shared with third parties. In the bad old days, CU was run with abandon, but it has been substantially tightened nowadays. However, if you are worried about your privacy I suggest not giving the WMF any more information that you are comfortable getting out by accident. WP is a hobby; you should not endanger your real life in pursuit of it. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am amazed CheckUser is allowed at all, as I certainly did not give WMF the information - information I didn't disclose was collected and I don't know even know what information? I am reasonable, but the standard for an action like this should be quite high - it should be a defensive measure only taken in response to a real threat of significant damage. And there is no way to know the identity of the person who collected this information? - most likely, this should only be entrusted to actual staff whose real identities are attached to their actions. I'm sorry, but is "gained the trust of the community" really enough here? Seraphim System ^(talk) 12:05, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion is unraveling, and as far as I can tell, other than a forum for editors to express their opinions on the block, on the vandalism, and on CheckUser policy, is no longer serving any particular purpose. Seraphim System says he's contacted ArbCom. Let ArbCom deal with it as they see fit. Just a couple of corrections. First, Seraphim System has clearly said they made the two edits to the Eichmann article ("Until I reviewed the diffs, I thought I had made that edit as an IP"). Second, Materialscientist did not "impose a short block for" the socking - you only have to look at Seraphim System's block log to know that's not true.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Sorry Bbb23, as this is still re. the above, but just to clarify that CUs are required to identify themselves to the foundation, I think (re. [8]), that 'real identities are attached to their actions.' Cheers, — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 13:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the CheckUser information. It's not some magic tool; it's pretty basic stuff like your IP, browser type, OS and similar type of information. The CU tool on Wikipedia is only available to checkusers. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:01, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BB23: Yes, I see now that the original account was indeff'd but there was a 24 hour block on my IP where I could not edit from this account or my IP. I don't see it in the logs, but I remember it happened. Maybe it is an automatic thing when there is suspected vandalism from an IP? I didn't even realize the original account was indeff'd because I never tried to go back to it, I had completely forgotten about it. I do understand what I did was ill-conceived and juvenile, and I have not repeated it since then, nor will I. Doug Weller has asked me to try to find an admin to lift the block. Given the overwhelming support for lifting the block, as the imposing admin, would you be willing to lift the block at this time? Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsindian: I've heard rumors that it collects your address and social security number also, and that's scary. Sorry if I am over-reacting. Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't collect your SSN. Please do not troll your own unblock request. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly dont know what it collects, but I am trying to be conciliatory here in the hopes that we can move on from this. All I have heard is that it "collects much more" then is publicly revealed, because SPI doesnt want sock masters to know all the details of the tool. So, no, I don't know that - it could be my address, my phone number, my outstanding library fines. The point is, I have no way of knowing, and it is intrusive and invasive, and the policies seem to say conflicting things about whether WMF knows the verified real names of the CheckUsers - so the fact that I am extremely upset and trying to make light of it should not be mistaken for trolling. Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When you sign up, you see, you implicitly agree to the privacy policy, which explicitly states that Our community of volunteer editors and contributors is a self-policing body. Certain administrators of the Wikimedia Sites, who are chosen by the community, use tools that grant them limited access to nonpublic information about recent contributions. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 13:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I actually did read the Policy from beginning to end while this was going on and the documents it incorporates. Does it also say WMF does not know the names of the Checkusers or did I imagine that? Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the section "To Protect You, Ourselves & Others" - probably you are right and CheckUsers are identified (I thought so too), and this is referring to other "various user-selected administrative groups" - but I don't know which - apparently these groups also have access to "limited amounts of otherwise nonpublic information" - but I don't know what. Usually these things are written like the authors are out to prove Gödel wrong. I take my privacy seriously, and I do have some questions about the policy that I want clarified - like crystal clear. Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Checkusers have to identify themselves to the WMF. We have to sign a confidentiality agreement. See Wikipedia:Access to nonpublic information CU doesn't collect anything in the way of identifying personal data of the type you suggest. Nothing to pinpoint who you are, nothing that could identify you by name. You don't need to worry about that. @Bbb23:, I don't think we are going to get involved in this but are leaving it to the community. Doug Weller talk 14:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way I can find out how many hours I have been blocked? Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Look at your block log[9] or at Bbb23's block notice above to see when you were blocked and count forward. Right now you have been blocked about 17 hours by my count. Bishonen | talk 16:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

thank you I've contacted the Ombudsmen and we are done here. I am not coming back after this. Seraphim System ^(talk) 17:52, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't leave for good. You have made some very excellent contributions, in particular your edits to Environmental justice and coal mining in Appalachia and the parent article Coal mining in Appalachia. You recognized the subject was notable in the face of calls to delete, a voice that was crucial in keeping the article from being deleted. Your efforts to maintain balance, accuracy and good sourcing will be missed. Your absence will not bode well for these two articles.

As for this action, I was surprised you had made the vandal edits, based on the edits I have seen from you, and had mistakenly thought it was a teenager playing games at the same IP address. I am glad you owned up and admitted it was wrong.

I do think you are over-reacting to the checkuser, in terms of how much information you believe was collected (and stored somewhere). I have no idea why you would think the checkuser could obtain personal information like a social security number, address, etc. I think the most that could be obtained is whatever information is publicly available about the IP address(es) you are using, information that I believe is available as mentioned at IP address, which might be worth a careful read. It's also my understanding that after the checkuser is run, the data is disposed of, and only the results of the IP match are kept. I believe the page is written in a way so that socks can't figure out the best way to go under the radar and somehow outwit the checkuser. Web hosts do contain information about who owns a particular page, which you can obtain by using the official ICANN lookup tool [10].

I'm not discouraging you from using your remedies for believed harm. Again I hope you don't leave and am sorry for this negative experience. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• (Non-administrator comment) Aside from the current block, if Materialscientist is correct that this editor intentionally triggered the edit filter on March 18, that raises the question of how someone who started editing in November would have that level of sophistication. I've been editing since 2008 and I hadn't even heard of the edit filter, let alone would I have any idea how to trigger it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:17, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think that the the user was aware a priori of the existence of edit filters and that the triggering of an edit-filter was intentional? It looks to me that the first attempt to put in an objectionable word was unexpectedly caught and blocked, so the editor found an alternative word that might not be blocked. No experienced user would do that, as it has zero benefit. It seems Seraphim System learned of the "edit filter" from this discussion. I believe I was aware of edit filters early on when I tried looking at a user history, and saw that option and wondered what it was about. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea, you'd have to ask Materialscientist. I was just taking their block log comment at face value and saying if it's true. If it's not then I apologize to Seraphim System. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway thanks for explaining how I tripped the edit filter, I had no idea, but I cant and wont work under admins who make decisions like this and are never disciplined. Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:52, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok, I'm not going to appeal the block even though MaxSem is wrong. I did acknowledge it was me, and I apologized. He is responsible for knowing that before making an administrative decision. Furthermore, even if I hadn't, he is also wrong that it would be sufficient to impost a block under our blocking policy. He is also responsible for knowing it is only one incident that happened one month ago. I'm not losing any sleep over it - I have a lot of translation to keep me busy. I will likely stop by once the block is lifted to complete projects I've already committed to, like cleaning up the Coal Mining in Appalachia articles and bringing Neville-Neville Feud up to GA review. But aside from that, I have very little actual respect for admins who are unable to properly enforce the policies they are charged with enforcing, and don't feel they need to get the facts correct before making decisions. That obviously makes my participation in this project quite difficult. Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:40, 6 May 2017 (UTC) MaxSem I'm sorry, I did not know you were not a native English speaker. I do understand this discussion has grown rather lengthy, but I did in fact acknowledge that I showed poor judgment on one occasion over one month ago. Aside from this, all of my edits have been constructive - it is obviously that the block is not preventative, and lifting it has been supported by the majority of editors who have commented. There is a lot going on in this discussion that is not going to be helpful to the reviewing administrator, so I apologize for that. I was extremely upset to be blocked seemingly out of nowhere and the night's discussions may have been emotional. I did notify the Ombudsman that I feel the CheckUser was inappropriate, but this should not really effect the decision to block or unblock - I am going to ask for the block to be reviewed by a native English speaker - since English is not your native language, I understand why you missed the relevant parts of the discussion. Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Diannaa I heard back from USHMM, they have assured me the picture is "free for use." Please restore it. Due to a punitive block I can not restore it right now (I'm sure if the policies say blocks should not be punitive, there is a reason for it right?) Anyway, I haven't really prioritized WWII pages - I know I promised you an Eichmann Trial page, but it's been low on my list of priorities. I'll use this "break" to get some research done - I look forward to working with you more when this block is over. Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:38, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What has to happen is for the USHMM to send an email to the OTRS team stating the copyright status of the image. There's detailed instructions at WP:donating copyrighted materials and a sample permission email at WP:Consent. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dianna: I don't think this image is copyrighted - they specifically said "We have a copy in our catalog, but do not restrict uses." Why do you think it is copyrighted? Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:01, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All images are automatically copyrighted at the moment they are created, and either the copyright of an image must have expired or the image must have been explicitly released with a suitable license before Wikipedia can use it. And whatever the status, an email detailing the copyright status must be sent to OTRS as explained - we can not just take your word for it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's from what, 1942? — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 09:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Something like that - but given the nature of the photograph I don't think it is copyrighted (by that I don't think any Court would hold that it is copyrighted, or that the USHMM has any concerns that any Court would hold that it is copyrighted) - copyrights have to be registered to a copyright holder. I am not sure what definition of copyright Boing! said Zebedee is using. But it is worth following up to find out if there is a registered copyright holder. Seraphim System ^(talk) 09:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then how comes there are no such concerns over its use in The last Jew in Vinnitsa, Einsatzgruppen trial, or The Holocaust in Ukraine...? — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 10:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This particular photos copyright status has been debated several times by editors here, but no one ever emailed the USHMM. Their exact words were "This image is free for use in Wikipedia articles. We have a copy in our catalog, but do not restrict uses." but I guess I can ask the USHMM if they "have legal authority to release the copyright of that work" if that is what is needed - I've seen some editors voice doubts about this in past discussions. Seraphim System ^(talk) 10:42, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How free is a license that can't be revoked anyway? Deep thought for the day. Anyway, I will ask USHMM gently if they are comfortable with the terms of the template. Many historical orphan works (especially photos) are unavailable to the public because of copyright issues. We are fortunate USHMM has found a way to make these available for everyone to use. Given the circumstances of the photo, I am not sure how they pulled this off but as the image is posted on the website, it most likely is not an orphan work. Seraphim System ^(talk) 10:53, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If USHMM can send that email to OTRS to verify the status, that would be the perfect solution. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria I am blocked here for another day or so, but I am active on Vikipedi adding sources - there is a lot to do and having access to the database would speed things up. Right now I am adding sources for our Donald Trump article. (Unfortunately, because of the block, I can't modify my application or project involvement on the library page at the moment) Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:44, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jesus. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to see the crossed line showing you are blocked is no longer showing on my screen. Your help is much needed in the many venues you frequent. Your sane voice at the project is much appreciated. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:59, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - I appreciate the welcome. This reminds me, I was planning to formally step away from Israel and the apartheid analogy after the block was lifted. That article seems to be a source of problems - (many of the diffs at SPI were from that article) - while both the complaint and the administrative decisions that night felt politically motivated, I don't want it to get in the way of other things I am working on here. It's my only remaining involvement in ARBPIA and I'll be glad to wash my hands clean of it. Seraphim System ^(talk) 10:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the Israel lobby in the United States is no doubt a force to be reckoned with and no doubt has its adherents on Wikipedia who take exception to almost anything that does not fully support the state. Now that you are back, I think you might find the discussion and changes at Wikipedia:Student_assignments of interest. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Quadcopter. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:W56. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Gwanggaeto the Great. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jews. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be bent on continuing the conflict on Judaism and sexuality. Please do not make unilateral edits to that paragraph. The specific problems with your edit I detailed in my revert. Please be aware that in light of your recent behavior and block, any attempt to disrupt this article by editing without obtaining prior consensus will be reported at WP:ANI long before any WP:3RR violations. Debresser (talk) 19:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]