The Scarlet Letter

[Peter Damian]

This http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... tioned_you.. discussion refers. See also this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Peter_Damian which was courtesy blanked in June 2011, but unblanked again a few days ago. The unblanked page contains two templates, one of which says, in effect 'this is a banned user'. The second has a creepy image of a person holding up a puppet, with the caption saying "It is suspected that the operator of this account has abusively used one or more accounts".

What's the meaning of 'abusively used' here? 'Abusive' makes it sound as though the culprit has done something seriously, ethically wrong. And why the tagging anyway? If the administrators want a list of accounts which have been banned, or any other list, why can't there be a page that cannot be viewed by members of the general public? What does the little publicly viewable sign mean?

The eponymous 'scarlet letter' is a sign of any kind which is pinned to the perpetrator of some perceived crime against the community, which must be worn as a mark of shame. It is recognised as a barbaric practice in all civilised countries, where crime and punishment are restricted to a formal, often secret process, and where the community itself (except as legally appointed representative) is not allowed to make decisions about guilt, sin or retribution.

[Triptych]

I think it says "abusively" as an acknowledgement that some alternate accounts are authorized by policy. An easily justifiable use in my view is the "security alternate account" which an editor might use on the road at an Internet cafe, or at a library Internet computer, or any public computer that could have been compromised in that the editor's password could be stolen. I wouldn't get something like that myself, but for a super active editor or an administrator with a lot of privileges that could do damage in an hacker's hands, I can surely see the value of that. I'm skeptical of some of the other authorized alternate account rationales. Hersfold who just resigned his arbitratorship lists a full ten alternate accounts at his user page.

You might or might not be making too much of the term "abuse." A more neutral way to say it would be "policy-violating" though. You do go too far by labeling the puppeteer image "creepy," it's little more than a diagram or clipart. Strangely though, it seems to have vanished at your page at least in the last thirty minutes.

The trickier question on alternate accounts is "disclosed" or "undisclosed." I'd say disclosed surely, unless there's a compelling reason not to. If an established editor realizes he can make good contributions on some inflamed political subject area like "Tea Party" or "terrorism," or an editor whose family or co-workers know his account wants to edit areas like "gay marriage" or "child abuse recovery" or "STDs" or Sir Richard Burton's concept of a "Sotadic Zone" it would be valid in my view to have an undisclosed alternate account for that.

A recent interesting debate I've noticed as to whether we should even care if an editor has one account or twenty. Let it be, let it be, in other words. But I think no, you really have to stop people from say, stacking votes in an RfA, or from generating a corrupt consensus on a controversial edit by weighing in under multiple assumed names on the article talkpage. And certainly from showing up in a stranger's guise to renew attacks on their editing adversaries.

[Triptych]

Whoa! The generic "sockpuppet" template blurb appears to have been changed project-wide in the last hour, and the image removed, in response to your complaint?!

The blurb is better, I'm not 100% convinced on the image, but nice going Peter Damian! Nice going, Wikipediocracy!

[Peter Damian]

You do go too far by labeling the puppeteer image "creepy," it's little more than a diagram or clipart.

A yellow star is not in itself creepy. Nor is the scarlet letter 'A', of itself. An image, like word, acquires connotations by the way it is used.

On the alterations to the template, this may affect, in an interesting way, the extensive discussions I have been having with Arbcom, the Foundation and the Foundation's lawyers over the last 48 hours. It looks as though the action was unilateral, by an admin called 'Reaper Eternal'. The Foundation and its lawyers are probably wishing he hadn't done that, although I am not a lawyer, of course. Hard to say.

you really have to stop people from say, stacking votes in an RfA, or from generating a corrupt consensus on a controversial edit by weighing in under multiple assumed names on the article talkpage. And certainly from showing up in a stranger's guise to renew attacks on their editing adversaries.

Yes, that is clearly abuse, and very bad abuse. Opening an account to improve an article about a medieval philosopher, when a previous account was banned years ago, is obviously not abuse. This is the point I am trying to make clearly to the Foundation and its lawyers.

[Hersch]

It was amusing when prolific posters of "sockpuppeteer" templates, such as SlimVirgin, turned out to be sockmistresses in their own right.

[lilburne]

Yes, that is clearly abuse, and very bad abuse. Opening an account to improve an article about a medieval philosopher, when a previous account was banned years ago, is obviously not abuse. This is the point I am trying to make clearly to the Foundation and its lawyers.

No. But it is treating them like little puppy dogs and rubbing their noses in their own poo.

[Malleus]

Opening an account to improve an article about a medieval philosopher, when a previous account was banned years ago, is obviously not abuse. This is the point I am trying to make clearly to the Foundation and its lawyers.

Good luck with that, as they seem to be blind to common sense. The only way to stop "abusive sockpuppeting" in the sense that WP uses that term is for editors to self-identify, and that's not going to happen any time soon.

[DanMurphy]

Now that they're fiddling with that "sockpuppeteer" template, I recommend an image more in keeping with its real purpose:

[The Devil's Advocate]

Reaper changed the templates for blocked and banned users as well. Banned: Before After. Blocked: Before After.

[Zoloft]

For posterity:

Before

banned_before.png

After

banned_after.png

[Peter Damian]

User 'Fram' is back from his weekend break and has spotted that the courtesy blanking has been restored http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =546869577 , i.e the scarlet letter that he replaced last week, has been removed again. Fram is not happy. "Why is all this courtesy applied to a user who doesn't seem to care about it anyway?" I.e. removing a badge of shame is a courtesy one must somehow 'deserve'. He also delivers a mighty slap to 'Volunteer Marek' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fram . Marek seems to imply that improving articles about medieval philosophers is not something that could reasonably be regarded as abusive socking. Fram doesn't understand. "No idea what you are talking about. Not really interested either, your dismissive attitude doesn't seem to have much to do with either policy or the reality of this situation. But feel free to elaborate if you meant something different than how it came across. Fram (talk) 07:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)"

I'm still intrigued why Fram takes such an interest in me to the point of harassment. And I'm also hacked off that these conversations about me taking place without my being allowed to contribute or defend myself in any way. My discussions with the Foundation and its lawyers continue, but they are taking the position that it is a 'content matter' and outside their remit. Does anyone see this as a 'content matter'??

[Peter Damian]

OK enough is enough, as they say. Fram has now outed me on Jimbo's page here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =546874846 – a page that is viewed my press and media world wide. I don't have a particular problem with outing, but (a) Wikipedians do and (b) outing in the context of the discussion there, containing all sorts of unpleasant allegations such as harassment, is totally unacceptable.

I am asking any administrator or arbitrator reading this to do the right thing, i.e. oversight the whole discussion. Totally unacceptable and appalling.

[roger_pearse]

This http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... tioned_you.. discussion refers. See also this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Peter_Damian which was courtesy blanked in June 2011, but unblanked again a few days ago. The unblanked page contains two templates, one of which says, in effect 'this is a banned user'. The second has a creepy image of a person holding up a puppet, with the caption saying "It is suspected that the operator of this account has abusively used one or more accounts".

It's incredibly wrong, this kind of thing. (And probably libellous).

[thekohser]

OK enough is enough, as they say. Fram has now outed me on Jimbo's page here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =546874846 – a page that is viewed my press and media world wide. I don't have a particular problem with outing, but (a) Wikipedians do and (b) outing in the context of the discussion there, containing all sorts of unpleasant allegations such as harassment, is totally unacceptable.

I am asking any administrator or arbitrator reading this to do the right thing, i.e. oversight the whole discussion. Totally unacceptable and appalling.

You couldn't have been "outed" by Fram, since you already self-identified your real name with your Wikimedia project User name, on a Wikimedia website. Let's try to be consistent, as this is exactly why we said it wasn't "outing" Scott Bibby to associate him with User:Russavia.

[Peter Damian]

You couldn't have been "outed" by Fram, since you already self-identified your real name with your Wikimedia project User name, on a Wikimedia website. Let's try to be consistent, as this is exactly why we said it wasn't "outing" Scott Bibby to associate him with User:Russavia.[/quote]

What I am unhappy about is the context in which those links were placed, as part of a thread where claims of 'harassment' and 'threat to security' were being made. I asked WMUK to help, and they did. See the other thread.

There's also the issue of this disturbing behaviour by 'Fram'. He has done a lot of work finding old accounts and unblanking them, and the objectionable link on Jimbo's page must have been the result of some very careful detective work. I don't know him from Donald Duck, and it's weird he is following me around like this. See the interchange below.

To address your second question, "Why is all this courtesy applied to a user who doesn't seem to care about it anyway?", Peter Damian does seem to find the tags vexing. Accordingly, ArbCom agreed to remove them and courtesy blank his userpage. I rather doubt that he has changed his mind about the tags, so I reverted your unblanking. Finally, regardless of whether or not he is "deserving" of courtesy, should we not do the right thing and extend common courtesy towards him as a fellow human being? All too often, it seems, people forget that there is another face, another human, another set of feelings that can be hurt behind the screen name of the account. As such, should we not remove the tags that he finds so vexing? Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Um, no. If he doesn't want his Wikipedia user name (not a name or a face, but a user name) connected to any problematic editing and/or sanctions, he could have just stayed away from here after all the pages were blanked or deleted, as was agreed. Now, he has returned, he has continued socking. Apparently he doesn't find the issue of being tagged a sockpuppet sufficiently vexing after all? Why, after all this, should we still give a flying shit about what he finds vexing about our methods to easily follow up his socking (things like his usual IP ranges and so on)? Or conversely, why don't you try to get rid of all sockpuppet tags, for every editor? After all, they probably all are human beings as well. You really haven't given any reason why PD should get preferential treatment. Fram (talk) 14:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

[Malleus]

What I am unhappy about is the context in which those links were placed, as part of a thread where claims of 'harassment' and 'threat to security' were being made. I asked WMUK to help, and they did. See the other thread.

I'm rather curious about this ban imposed on you by WMUK. How did it work? Did they employ security guards to eject you if you were unwise enough to turn up? If you were really a "threat to security" why didn't they just get the appropriate authorities involved? The idea of banning anyone from public meetings seems to be a very Wikipedian notion anyway. "Ooh, he's saying something I don't like, ban him."

[Peter Damian]

The idea was that they couldn't ban me from their WMUK meetings held in the pub, as that was a public space. But an event in 'private space' they could easily ban me from.

In any case, it is all water under the bridge, so long as people don't make stupid and untrue allegations, which was what was happening on Jimbo's page.

Also, despite having said he wouldn't do anything, I see that the Worm has done something. Thank you.

[Peter Damian]

Personally, I find that sort of template distateful in any case - I don't see why user pages should be blanked and marked forevermore. Those who need to know can easily find out the user's status by looking in the block log, whilst forcing it onto a page will mark that username across the internet. The only possible reason I can see for that is punishment, to make the user suffer. That's unhelpful and against the way we work on wikipedia. WormTT(talk) 14:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AGK

The only bit I don't agree with is the very last sentence.

[rhindle]

What I am unhappy about is the context in which those links were placed, as part of a thread where claims of 'harassment' and 'threat to security' were being made. I asked WMUK to help, and they did. See the other thread.

I'm rather curious about this ban imposed on you by WMUK. How did it work? Did they employ security guards to eject you if you were unwise enough to turn up? If you were really a "threat to security" why didn't they just get the appropriate authorities involved? The idea of banning anyone from public meetings seems to be a very Wikipedian notion anyway. "Ooh, he's saying something I don't like, ban him."

The idea was that they couldn't ban me from their WMUK meetings held in the pub, as that was a public space. But an event in 'private space' they could easily ban me from.

In any case, it is all water under the bridge, so long as people don't make stupid and untrue allegations, which was what was happening on Jimbo's page.

Also, despite having said he wouldn't do anything, I see that the Worm has done something. Thank you.

User Talk: Jimbo Wales - Peter Damian & WMUK

[lilburne]

fram2.jpg

Lets see if he likes my scarlet letter.

[Kumioko]

OK enough is enough, as they say. Fram has now outed me on Jimbo's page here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =546874846 – a page that is viewed my press and media world wide. I don't have a particular problem with outing, but (a) Wikipedians do and (b) outing in the context of the discussion there, containing all sorts of unpleasant allegations such as harassment, is totally unacceptable.

I am asking any administrator or arbitrator reading this to do the right thing, i.e. oversight the whole discussion. Totally unacceptable and appalling.

You couldn't have been "outed" by Fram, since you already self-identified your real name with your Wikimedia project User name, on a Wikimedia website. Let's try to be consistent, as this is exactly why we said it wasn't "outing" Scott Bibby to associate him with User:Russavia.

I think its pretty funny that they made such a fuss about Cla outing and yet Fram does it and no one cares. Probably because its you and you are a member here...the Evil Wikipediocracy site that so unfairly criticizes Wikipedia. What a joke. This is just another prime example of how Wikipedia enforces policy when it wants too or when the editor in question is or isn't an admin. Admins get away with murder and the lowly peasants get expelled from the community.

[The Joy]

Wikipedia should have it that a block/ban template automatically makes the user page and its associated talk page NOINDEXed to search engines, or have a bot NOINDEX pages with the template. That may not solve the entire "scarlet letter" problem, but it would be a step in the right direction.

[Reaper Eternal]

__NOINDEX__ was removed a while ago. I put it back in yesterday morning because the userspace is not noindexed by default, contrary to the claim.

[roger_pearse]

I was just wondering ... why does WP have block/banned templates at all? What purpose do they serve?

[EricBarbour]

I was just wondering ... why does WP have block/banned templates at all? What purpose do they serve?

Sadistic cruel mockery. Nothing more nor less.

[Hex]

I was just wondering ... why does WP have block/banned templates at all? What purpose do they serve?

I thought the point was at least partially to prevent people from wasting their time attempting to communicate with people who'll never be able to reply.

[roger_pearse]

I was just wondering ... why does WP have block/banned templates at all? What purpose do they serve?

Sadistic cruel mockery. Nothing more nor less.

True; but if we imagine that WP was working properly, and was a project to create an encyclopedia, then what would these templates exist for? How would they contribute to that end? That was what I was wondering.

[roger_pearse]

I was just wondering ... why does WP have block/banned templates at all? What purpose do they serve?

I thought the point was at least partially to prevent people from wasting their time attempting to communicate with people who'll never be able to reply.

Interesting. Perhaps so. But if so, it has strayed a long way from that.

[dogbiscuit]

I was just wondering ... why does WP have block/banned templates at all? What purpose do they serve?

Sadistic cruel mockery. Nothing more nor less.

True; but if we imagine that WP was working properly, and was a project to create an encyclopedia, then what would these templates exist for? How would they contribute to that end? That was what I was wondering.

I think that Wikipedia generally has got so immersed in its own history, that it is drowning in red tape. With no governing body, there are no real rules, just an increasingly opaque set of guidelines.

In almost every aspect of Wikipedia we can ask the same question: why have we got these rules and guidelines? Do they serve the purpose of building an encyclopedia or is their purpose to be part of a game?

Again generally, when you are within Wikipedia, these complex rules seem appropriate. When you step back from Wikipedia, they often are pointless and may even work against their stated aims. Sometimes we can even trace back to the person who deliberately engineered the rule to gain ascendency in some dispute or other. The classic example (dredging up old history) would be SlimVirgin who would write policy, get into a dispute and then rewrite policy. SlimVirgin was the gatekeeper of policy at one point and other people who attempted to make adjustments to policy were not even fought off, they were simply reverted and pointed to the talk page where they were simply ignored.

[The Devil's Advocate]

I was just wondering ... why does WP have block/banned templates at all? What purpose do they serve?

I can certainly see sense in sockpuppet templates since, if someone is using socks to do something untoward, it helps to have an idea of how to identify the sockpuppets. As far as I can tell, the only plausible explanation for banned templates are because of the rules regarding bans as opposed to blocks i.e. a specific process is required to overturn the underlying block. When it comes to block templates, pretty sure Eric gave the only reasonable explanation, although it may not always be intended as "mockery" per se.

[lilburne]

I was just wondering ... why does WP have block/banned templates at all? What purpose do they serve?

Sadistic cruel mockery. Nothing more nor less.

[rhindle]

Perhaps someone should start an RfC. A big sign saying an account is banned on their user page is definitely unnecessary but, like was mentioned early, it just lets users know that this account can't reply or edit. If that's the case then have it noted on the talk page and noindex it along with the main user page.

[DanMurphy]

There is a logic to this obsessive tagging -- once you accept the insane Wiki-world/Wiki-ball (No, not "Polandball" but "Calvinball" premise.

Anyone for any reason can sign up to edit under any name at any time! All are welcome... except those who are NOT! Got it? I'll explain what Wikipedia is NOT (except sometimes is, or sort of is, depending on which teenaged admin who forgot to take his Aderol on a given day shows up, but I digress...) later.

Having fun yet?

So we have to tag people as a way to keep track of them. It's part of the game.

Sure, we could set up an approach that was focused on creating high-quality encyclopedia articles, but then anyone for any reason under any name couldn't sign up to play at any time. And that's no fun. AT. ALL.

Got it?

[roger_pearse]

I was just wondering ... why does WP have block/banned templates at all? What purpose do they serve?

I can certainly see sense in sockpuppet templates since, if someone is using socks to do something untoward, it helps to have an idea of how to identify the sockpuppets.

But how does a public template contribute to this? It tells none of those with the power to act anything they don't know already (unless I am missing the point)?

As far as I can tell, the only plausible explanation for banned templates are because of the rules regarding bans as opposed to blocks i.e. a specific process is required to overturn the underlying block.

Again, it seems unnecessary.

When it comes to block templates, pretty sure Eric gave the only reasonable explanation, although it may not always be intended as "mockery" per se.

I fear so.

[The Devil's Advocate]

But how does a public template contribute to this? It tells none of those with the power to act anything they don't know already (unless I am missing the point)?

It allows non-admins to check for similarities if they come upon a suspicious account. That can make the removal of disruptive socking happen quicker and thus reduce potential problems.

Again, it seems unnecessary.

Certainly, it is not as apparently useful as the sock templates. Any admin blocking pursuant to a site-ban should make the nature of the block clear enough in the log to prevent mistakes by other admins so it basically just makes doubly sure. The only other thing would be insuring editors are aware of the specific user talk restrictions that apply to banned editors, though the current template does not really serve such a purpose.

[Hersch]

This template is my personal favorite.

[The Devil's Advocate]

Whoa! The generic "sockpuppet" template blurb appears to have been changed project-wide in the last hour, and the image removed, in response to your complaint?!

The blurb is better, I'm not 100% convinced on the image, but nice going Peter Damian! Nice going, Wikipediocracy!

Spoke too soon. It seems "TheFace" noticed and promptly cried foul. After receiving a few yea votes it was restored back to its original degrading form. Why TheFace?

[Peter Damian]

Whoa! The generic "sockpuppet" template blurb appears to have been changed project-wide in the last hour, and the image removed, in response to your complaint?!

The blurb is better, I'm not 100% convinced on the image, but nice going Peter Damian! Nice going, Wikipediocracy!

Spoke too soon. It seems "TheFace" noticed and promptly cried foul. After receiving a few yea votes it was restored back to its original degrading form. Why TheFace?

Thanks for that. I penned a letter to the arbcom and the Foundation's lawyers about the use of the term 'cheater' http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =551337958 to describe a victim of this kind of branding, pointing out that the term 'sockpuppet' is applied for two radically different reasons on Wikipedia. One, for the use of multiple accounts to gain advantage in a vote or dispute. This is validly described as cheating. I have never contemplated doing such a thing, and regard it as immoral. The other is to bring the sum of human knowledge to every person on the planet by cirvumventing an arbitrary ban. I regard this as a noble and glorious thing. And far removed from 'cheating'.

[Hex]

Spoke too soon. It seems "TheFace" noticed and promptly cried foul. After receiving a few yea votes it was restored back to its original degrading form. Why TheFace?

I don't recognize any of the names in that discussion, even from my occasional foray into AN/I and other noisy areas. Who are these people making decisions with site-wide effects? Shouldn't that discussion have been advertised to everyone?

Edit: Apparently it was listed as a style RfC. Well, I didn't see it. I've opened a new RfC and added it to the centralized discussion list to get more attention.

[Poetlister]

I don't recognize any of the names in that discussion, even from my occasional foray into AN/I and other noisy areas. Who are these people making decisions with site-wide effects? Shouldn't that discussion have been advertised to everyone?

This is why "decisions by the community" are mostly nonsense. Maybe all such decisions are nonsense.

[Hersch]

... the term 'sockpuppet' is applied for two radically different reasons on Wikipedia. One, for the use of multiple accounts to gain advantage in a vote or dispute. This is validly described as cheating. I have never contemplated doing such a thing, and regard it as immoral. The other is to bring the sum of human knowledge to every person on the planet by cirvumventing an arbitrary ban. I regard this as a noble and glorious thing. And far removed from 'cheating'.

"Noble and glorious" might be overdoing it. I regard human knowledge as a bit like an aleph series, where finding a "sum" might be elusive.

[Ming]

The other is to bring the sum of human knowledge to every person on the planet by cirvumventing an arbitrary ban. I regard this as a noble and glorious thing. And far removed from 'cheating'.

Well, I'm sure Paul Bedson (T-C-L) thinks he is bringing the sum of human knowledge to every person on the planet by creating new identities in order to keep pushing his crackpot theories.

[Peter Damian]

The other is to bring the sum of human knowledge to every person on the planet by cirvumventing an arbitrary ban. I regard this as a noble and glorious thing. And far removed from 'cheating'.

Well, I'm sure Paul Bedson (T-C-L) thinks he is bringing the sum of human knowledge to every person on the planet by creating new identities in order to keep pushing his crackpot theories.

Well he thinks he is, but crackpot theories aren't human knowledge, are they?

[Poetlister]

Well he thinks he is, but crackpot theories aren't human knowledge, are they?

True, but who's to decide what's a crackpot theory? (Don't say experts; this is Wikipedia!)

[EricBarbour]

Well, I'm sure Paul Bedson (T-C-L) thinks he is bringing the sum of human knowledge to every person on the planet by creating new identities in order to keep pushing his crackpot theories.

Have you got a summary of what he's been up to? As usual, the SPAs aren't much help.

[IRWolfie-]

Well, I'm sure Paul Bedson (T-C-L) thinks he is bringing the sum of human knowledge to every person on the planet by creating new identities in order to keep pushing his crackpot theories.

Have you got a summary of what he's been up to? As usual, the SPAs aren't much help.

Blocked because of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... he_dispute and as far as I am aware has been socking since. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:S ... ext=Search for some of the issues.

[Captain Occam]

... the term 'sockpuppet' is applied for two radically different reasons on Wikipedia. One, for the use of multiple accounts to gain advantage in a vote or dispute. This is validly described as cheating. I have never contemplated doing such a thing, and regard it as immoral. The other is to bring the sum of human knowledge to every person on the planet by cirvumventing an arbitrary ban. I regard this as a noble and glorious thing. And far removed from 'cheating'.

"Noble and glorious" might be overdoing it. I regard human knowledge as a bit like an aleph series, where finding a "sum" might be elusive.

It seems to also have a third meaning now. Now it's getting used for IPs that a user in good standing edited from while logged out and before they registered. I'm not making this up.

Is tagging IPs as socks for this reason a new thing, or have people done it before?

[EricBarbour]

Is tagging IPs as socks for this reason a new thing, or have people done it before?

Quite commonplace, in fact. I've seen it happen endless times. Some SPIs just go out and grab random IP addresses and
wave them around as "socks". The value of an SPI is dependent on the bastards "investigating" it, and the system is
abused routinely.

Ask Hersch about that--they filed a massive SPI against him that was 90% bullshit. They just grabbed a bunch of random accounts
and IP addresses and claimed they were all him (some of them had never edited anything on Wikipedia).

[Poetlister]

Ask Hersch about that--they filed a massive SPI against him that was 90% bullshit. They just grabbed a bunch of random accounts and IP addresses and claimed they were all him (some of them had never edited anything on Wikipedia).

It's inevitable. Once someonen has been found guilty of sockpuppetry (whether or no tthe original charges were validly proved), he will repeatedly be charged with fresh offences of which he is not guilty. The checkusers have to justify their existence somehow.

[Hersch]

See Wikipedia:9STEPS (T-H-L).