Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:42, 20 October 2013

An editor thinks something might be wrong with this page. That editor won't actually make any effort to fix it, but can rest assured that they've done their encyclopedic duty by sticking on a tag. Please allow this tag to languish indefinitely at the top of the page, since nobody knows exactly what the tagging editor was worked up about.

Template:Archive box collapsible

Village pumps

policy

tech

proposals

idea lab

WMF

misc

• A request for adminship is open for discussion.
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication
• Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers
• Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed?

• view
• edit
• history
• watch
• archive
• talk
• purge

RfA

Hey Hobit, you and I haven't always got along too well I think, and I once lost my cool in a brief discussion with you. I really appreciate you not holding that against me. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!!!

Dear Hobit - I really want to appreciate your time and effort in analyzing my First Article "Jeeva Artist". First I want to apologize for the inconvenience caused by me. Next the reason I saved it without complete details was - As you know - In India Power Cut is a common issue. I don't have backup. So I want to make sure the start stays there. Once again Thanks. Take care. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pvrmagesh (talk • contribs) 19:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

DRV Slammiversary IX

RE. Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2011 May 27, probability of this being notable in a few weeks

Yes, we're not a bureaucracy. However, many many times, articles about future pay-per-view wrestling articles have been created, way ahead of the event itself - whilst they are not notable. So, we end up 'advertising' for them.

I can quite understand the attitude that, yep, it'll be notable in some weeks.

But this happens again, and again, and again.

Examples: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Over the Limit (2011), Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/WWE Capitol Punishment. There's lots more. See also ANI archive.

A large number of fans, related to the wiki project, turn up to blindly vote to 'keep' them.

I also ask you to please skim down the user talk page of the person who created "Slammiversary IX", which is User talk:Supermhj8616.

Now - maybe I should just give up on this; I probably will, soon. Because, it seems due process is just being abused. But I hope this message at least explains to you why I took it to DRV in the first place.

Frankly, your comment there seems to be saying "OK, it should have been deleted (according to policies), but because it wasn't, and because it will be notable in some weeks, it's not worth bothering". I can understand that. The trouble is, the precedent it sets.

I hope that makes sense. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  05:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Replied, User_talk:Chzz#Yep.  Chzz  ►  05:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Dungeons & Dragons simulacrums

An article that you have been involved in editing, Dungeons & Dragons simulacrums , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. zorblek (talk) 05:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

6b

Hi Hobit. Thanks for the RfA support, and for the thought-provoking questions. I'm curious to know where we disagree on 6b, what were your thoughts on that? 28bytes (talk) 18:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Just an FYI, I've added what I believe is relevant info in a matter you commented on at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Bill_Slavicsek--Cube lurker (talk) 02:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Hobit, I'm quite thankful to you for your statements about the recently created attack essay that was made about me. Your views regarding the inappropriate use of essay space as an attack on an editor, is most appreciated. — Cirt (talk) 19:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• You are welcome Cirt, but honestly I wouldn't care _who_ was being attacked like this--even those I actually see serious fault with. An essay isn't the place for commentary on a user. If they feel that strongly, RfC/U is the way to go (which I don't think is needed/makes sense, but it's still the right forum). Hobit (talk) 20:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Hobit — What do you think of my statements regarding my future editing: diff and diff ? — Cirt (talk) 20:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Overkill IMO, but certainly should address the perceived issues. Hobit (talk) 20:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Why overkill? I'd appreciate it if you could be more specific about how it will address the perceived issues? — Cirt (talk) 20:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
        • I'd say just staying away from Scientology and Savage should be enough. Certainly enough for me to feel the issue was over and done with. But then I don't see a serious problem with Savage (a bit with Scientology though, and that's as an old ARS semi-regular). Hobit (talk) 22:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
          • Well, by that reasoning it surely is a good thing for me to focus on other topics such as Supreme Court of the United States cases and the more general topic of Freedom of speech, yes? — Cirt (talk) 22:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
            • Yep, it's a good thing, but I'd certainly say you need not just focus on that area. Hobit (talk) 22:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
              • Ah, understood. Well, just wanted to emphasize as already noted in my above statements, my commitments to not edit DYK again in the future, and focus on those above topics in addition to my prior GA and FA quality improvement projects. Do you have any other advice related to how to address issues pertaining to recent controversy and actions about me? — Cirt (talk) 22:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
                • Nope, just keep your head down for a bit. I've always found you to be a fine editor. Best of luck! Hobit (talk) 23:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Another thanks

Thank you very much for your kind words. You deserve much greater props for working to expand the article and keep it relevant - the effort is highly appreciated and reflects well. I apologize for the early close. And yeah, these types of discussions can flare up sometimes. I do my best to maintain a cool atmosphere and help everyone realize that, while we are trying to improve Misplaced Pages, we mustn't let ourselves get angry with others just because they have differing opinions. Anyway, cheers. Hope to see you around more often. m.o.p 08:22, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

IID

Regarding your comment at VPP, what do you mean about the different kinds of randomness? All articles should have an equal chance of being selected, so our random function (if working correctly) should give a uniform distribution across articles. Isn't IID a subtlety for when you don't know the distribution, but make the assumption that all trials come from the same one? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

• What I meant was that just because something was random doesn't mean there is a uniform distribution. And yes, I should have used "uniform distribution" rather than IID, though I _think_ in this case they are equivalent. As I mentioned I mess up the terms in class all the time... Hobit (talk) 18:00, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard

I have raised the issues of the Nation of Gods and Earths article on this noticeboard: . Paul B (talk) 20:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Username

I don't like your username, it is extremely offensive to me. Would you consider changing it please? 2.121.53.66 (talk) 18:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, likely not. I'd be interested in why you find it offensive though. Hobit (talk) 19:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe he's a super passionate Lord of the Rings fan that doesn't even tolerate typos when they aren't even referring to Lord of the Rings?--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey, it's not a typo, it's my username!  :-) Seriously, it's a name I've used on-and-off for years. Hobit (talk) 01:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

? ? ? --Nuujinn (talk) 01:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	For being a calm, reasonable voice amidst tempests of tea. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Bernard Lewinsky

Since you were saying in the AfD that it was Lewinsky's photography that was giving him the best push, I would ask that you look at the additions that I have made and see whether that is enough to strengthen your Keep vote. Silverseren 01:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Humm, I came by to say I felt the discussion was pretty clearly a keep and if you are going to close some other way, it would be helpful to explain why in the closing. I don't see how WP:BLP1E applies at this point as WP:N is (now, after improvements) pretty clearly met even ignoring the "event" in question. If you feel the discussion concluded otherwise, it would be helpful to know that and exactly why. I don't think any of the remaining deletion !votes addressed the improvements to the article... Hobit (talk) 20:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll type up a rationale and add it to the AFD within the next couple days. If you don't find it persuasive you are sincerely invited to take it up on WP:DRV, of course. By the way, the previous comments on my talk page should not be construed as a closing rationale: I'd meant to make that clear in the same comment, but apparently my efforts failed. Regards, causa sui (talk) 20:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I've added a rationale. causa sui (talk) 17:29, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Requested a third opinion

Hobit, I have requested a third opinion on Talk:Michelle_Rhee#Rhee.27s_opinion_on_vouchers, which I believe means we leave it alone for six days or so. The request is now listed on the active disagreement section.Misplaced Pages:Third opinion#Active disagreements --Regards--KeptSouth (talk) 20:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#User:La goutte de pluie and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,OpenInfoForAll (talk) 22:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Waht?

Not sure what you mean by "reduce his bandwidth" and "spam the discussion." Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk)

WP:Inaccuracy

Hi,

I saw your post at the RfC on the first sentence of WP:V, and you usually have insightful opinions.  Please take a look at WP:Inaccuracy, which is purposed to be a guideline linked from WP:V and WP:NPOV.  One of the comments today had words to the effect of "if it were promoted", which makes me wonder if others see this essay as close to being promoted to a guideline.  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 01:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Nguyễn Xuân Minh (Wikipedian)

I responded (a day or so late) to your comment; I hope you'll take it in the spirit in which it was offered. Take care, Drmies (talk) 21:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Not everyone's going to agree 100% of the time. Best to you! Trusilver 21:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I would like to continue the discussion if you are interested. I don't think what I quoted is "my" guideline: it's a direct quote from WP:GNG/WP:N. ("If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.") I argue that if a subject meets WP:N he need not meet the subject specific guideline. And in fact WP:BIO makes that pretty clear ("A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Misplaced Pages:Notability.") I think I'm reading the letter of the law (well of the guideline) correctly. "Rules As Written (RAW)" if you will. It seems very obvious to me, but perhaps there is a different way to read the RAW. If so, I'd like to understand it. Or are you arguing that the "Rules As Intended" (RAI) are something different than the literal reading of RAW? Or are you arguing that the rules are simply wrong? I get the sense, by labeling the quote as "my" rule, that we disagree on RAW. In any case, I'd love to hear your reasoning.

In all cases, thanks again for the thought. I only wish the virtual beer weren't so virtual... Hobit (talk) 03:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

My position on it is that if we use ONLY the general notability guidelines, then damn never everything becomes notable. If we are using only those guidelines, then there really isn't a need for anything else, such as WP:ATHLETE or WP:CREATIVE or whatever, because those guidelines only serve to set stricter parameters on what is already broadly permitted under WP:GNG. If we rely only on that broad guideline then I would have an article myself. Should I have one? Hell no, but it would be allowable under the general notability guidlines... that's why we have further guidelines such as WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E that prevent such a thing. If Drmies is around, and talk page stalking, I wonder if he could do a big favor and userfy an article for me, Erik A. Williams is the name, it's one that I happen to remember because the guy is on the cusp of being notable and made a huge self-promotional circus about his article being deleted. If we can get a copy of that article as it existed before the RfA, I am curious what your evaluation of it is. Trusilver 05:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Yep, that makes more sense. I agree that RAW requires WP:N is further narrowed by things like WP:NOT and BLP1E. I disagree that RAW allows further narrowing with things like WP:ANYBIO. In fact those subject-specific guidelines generally defer to WP:N. I realize you feel that leads to too many topics being notable. It turns out that I find they exclude topics I think we should cover. But those are the rules we've got. And I think given the goals of Misplaced Pages and the pillar of WP:PAPER we are hard pressed to cover too much (with the possible exception of BLPs) if we can find good and reasonable sources on which to base an article. Hobit (talk) 06:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's a really good one: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Disappearance of Edward and Austin Bryant (2nd nomination). I said delete on this, but I am now on the fence about it. This easily passes WP:GNG, but I think it has issues with WP:BLP1E and WP:VICTIM, still it has slightly unique circumstances that make me want to err on the side of caution and keep it. Trusilver 06:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Might well have a NOTNEWS issue, but I really don't think there is a BLP1E issue (it's not a BLP and in fact BLP1E encourages articles on the event rather than the person). Key question is on-going coverage. There is some, but it's pretty minor. I'd as soon cover something like this, but I think RAW is debatable here. I'll likely not !vote as I tend to only do so when I think I've got the whole picture. At the moment I'd close it as a keep or maybe NC. Both sides are reasonable, but consensus seems to be leaning on the keep side. Hobit (talk) 07:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's the fact that it's already shifting to one side which is keeping me from digging too much more into it, this one is basically already over. Marginal notability issues like that are the reason that I don't like WP:PROD. the Japanese Misplaced Pages had a nearly successful campaign to get rid of PROD altogether, and I think that it wouldn't be a bad idea for us to get rid of it, I think that it's a redundant system next to CSD and AfD, and doesn't have the same oversight. Obscure articles that are notable are vulnerable to be deleted under prod because of the lack of real oversight (or interest, I've seen prodded articles sit for a week past the delete date because there is an off and on lack of interest in prod among admins). Trusilver 00:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Some falafel for you!

Oh, if that's what we're doing, I think I can top that. Drmies (talk) 21:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I see that not as a one-up, but rather an excellent example of synergy. A falafel and a beer doesn't sound half bad. Trusilver 21:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Can't argue with that. Certainly better than being in the lab at 11:30pm on a Saturday. But if I get only one, at the moment I'll take the beer! Hobit (talk) 03:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you

Thankyou for participating in my request for adminship. Now I've got lots of extra buttons to try and avoid pressing by mistake... Redrose64 (talk) 16:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Category talk:Anti-abortion violence#RFC on supercategory

Category talk:Anti-abortion violence#RFC on supercategory was reopened after a review at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#RFC close review: Category:Anti-abortion violence.

I am notifying all editors who participated in these two discussions or Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 26#"Christian terrorism" supercategory at Cat:Anti-abortion violence. to ensure all editors are aware of the reopened discussion. Cunard (talk) 04:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4: Moving forward

As a participant at Misplaced Pages talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4 and subsequent XfDs, would you take a look at Misplaced Pages talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4: Moving forward? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree to disagree

Best of luck to you, too! Let me know if you ever need my help with anything on here! There's a few things I can do halfway decent!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Mike, Hobit (talk) 00:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Pregnancy#RfC: Which photo should we use in the lead?

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Pregnancy#RfC: Which photo should we use in the lead?. You participated in the previous RFC on the lead image, Talk:Pregnancy/Archive 4#Lead image RfC. Nil Einne (talk) 15:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)Template:Z48

RFA thank you

Thank you for your support at my recent successful RFA. Being now the new fellow in the fraternity of administrators, I will do my best to live up to the confidence shown in me by others, will move slowly and carefully when using the mop, will seek input from others before any action of which I might be unsure, and will try not to break anything beyond repair. Best, Schmidt, 21:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Inherent notability for elementary schools which have been "Blue Ribbon Schools"

I am contacting you because you participated in either the AFD Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kennedy Middle School (Cupertino, California) which resulted in a redirect or the deletion review Misplaced Pages:Deletion review#Kennedy Middle School (Cupertino, California) which resulted in restoration of the article because it was once a "Blue Ribbon School". I have opened a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (organizations and companies)#US elementary schools: Inherent notability: for "Blue Ribbon Schools" as to whether the 5200 schools which have been found awarded the "Blue Ribbon" seal of approval get inherent notability, or if they each have to satisfy WP:ORG via significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. Your input is welcome.Thanks! Edison (talk) 19:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you very much for your help with the BSN page.

Shall I just start editting the BSN article on your page from now on?

Please also let me know if it is alright to invite other colleagues to contribute to the page editting as well. (Airuko (talk) 06:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC))

Dear Hobit, I think we have addressed the COI issue and highlighted the differences between BSN and BAN. Could you please have a look to see if the page looks alright? (Airuko (talk) 03:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC))

If possible, I would like to ask for 2-3 more days to add more information to the page, but I would like to ask for your comments first. Thank you very much again in advance. (203.131.209.66 (talk) 09:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC))

Things look better, but honestly I don't have time to look closely. I'd eliminate the quote in bold in the lede (or at least cite it and put it in quotes) but we can address that later... I'll try to jump on this on Sat. Hobit (talk) 21:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Happy new year. I hope you haven't forgotten about the BSN page. If you have time, please have a look and give me some comments. (Airuko (talk) 13:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC))

Thank you x 2

Thanks for the feedback at WP:AN, much appreciated. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

BLP1E close

I'm quite disappointed you didn't trust me enough to have thought this through properly and that you challenged the close on my talk before actually reading the reasons for my action. Spartaz 20:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oh, no. No, trust wasn't the issue--just my own stupidity. I just screwed up and didn't think to check the (new) closing statement. Completely inexcusable on my part. (Thus the facepalm in my edit summary.) It's been a long couple of weeks (I'm at work right now and should really be doing that rather than this as I'm missing my son in a Christmas Pageant). On that note, I'm leaving WP for the rest of the day. Got plenty of other things to do and I'm making a mess of things on WP it seems. Best of luck and sorry if it seemed I was implying something bad about you! I entirely see where you are coming from, I just don't think deletion was the correct outcome there. Hobit (talk) 20:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Richard Arthur Norton: Revisiting topic ban; Should it be removed or made indefinite?

Hi Hobit. You participated in Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#Richard Arthur Norton copyright violations, in which a one-month topic ban on creating new articles and making page moves was imposed on Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs). The closing admin has asked for community input about whether to remove the topic ban or make it indefinite at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Richard Arthur Norton: Revisiting topic ban; Should it be removed or made indefinite?. Cunard (talk) 08:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Your Question

Normally, I would rather cut off my wrist then be seen to be doing anything like a talkback but I want to make sure you did get the message that the thread two sections up had no bearing on my decision to drop the bit. I sent you a long email. Spartaz 02:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Muhammad images arbitration case

An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 14, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Citing an interview

Hello Hobit, I appreciate your feedback on Katie_Harwood. Since this is my first attempt at an article I am still learning my way through. I guess I am still confused about what OR is. Much of the info for the article came from the production notes, official website and interviews on the extra features and behind the scenes portion of the DVD. Are words spoken and concepts demonstrated on a DVD not eligible as an official WP source? Tola73 22:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Help needed

Hello. Could you please do something about this discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review/Log/2011_December_23&action=history. It seems like it has continued forever, without resolution. Sherlock Holmes Fan (talk) 06:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Armbrust, B.Ed. _{about my edits?} 13:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Paramount Intersection

As it turns out, this article was successfully relisted over at AfD on the 15th. If you're still interested, would you be willing to help track down an expert in the field?   — C M B J   14:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

RAN

I replied to your query at RAN's talkpage on January 20, indicating that that copyvio was the same in four or five articles, with plenty of evidence, but RAN "archived" (removed) that section and much more the same day, without replying to it. Fram (talk) 11:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

As an aside, I poked Fram for using a template, but now realize why he did so. I responded at Fram's talk page.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

DRV

A notification that the Templates for Discussion discussion (oy, repetition) has been taken to a deletion review discussion. The Article Rescue Squadron was notified, and as notifications to previous involved parties isn't normal practise, I and a few ARS members agreed that, in the interests of transparency and fairness, we should let everyone know...hence this talkpage message ;).

If anyone has an issue with me sending these out, do drop me a note on my talkpage. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 10:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Fæ

A request for comments has been opened on administrator User:Fæ. You are being notified due to your prior participation in ANI, RfA, or RfC discussions regarding this user. Thank you, MadmanBot (talk) 20:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

You're not an admin... wow that is surprising. That being said, I could see that you might have a challenge passing an RfA... too outspoken. But I had thought you were one.---Balloonman 15:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Hobit has that authoritative voice, and a cool username to match. Let's face it, Balloonman, mine is unpronouncable and yours, well, it has a balloon in it, which is cute but does not inspire awe. Hey Hobit, how are you? Drmies (talk) 17:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

busy as heck (kid getting medical care, midterms to write, etc.) but starting to return. Thanks for the kind words from the both of you! Hobit (talk) 18:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, good luck to both of you then. I'm sure you have a real nice kid and that everything goes well. Drmies (talk) 21:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

BSN page

I hope everything goes well with you and your kid. When you are back, please help me look at the BSN page. We need some direction whether the page looks alright or what else should be modified. Thank you very much in advance. (Airuko (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 07:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC).

Erpert 06:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Hobit. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Misplaced Pages, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang 12:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

You've been mentioned

FYI, just a heads-up that I've mentioned you in the course of a discussion about Fae at WP:AN#Moving forward. Prioryman (talk) 08:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Lamia (D&D)

Hello, as you took part in the 1st AFD for Lamia (Dungeons & Dragons), which closed on "no consensus", I'm bringing to your attention that after a second AFD with the same result, a discussion on whether to merge or not has opened on the article talk page. BOZ (talk) 11:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Bbb23

OK, I'm going to have to block you for your comments since they, eh, insult an officer of the court or something like that. This is Misplaced Pages, Hobit--we can't have people who honestly speak their mind on important matters. I disagree, of course, both on the candidate and on the injunction of WP:V etc., but it's always good to see you're still around. Who knows, one of these days the bug will bite you and you'll create another article! ;) Drmies (talk) 02:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• From requested articles: Asymmetric Logical Unit Access - Gonadostat - GASP phenotype - Riesz summation - Space frontier - Upstaging. Enjoy, Drmies (talk) 02:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Eh, created one a few months back. Enough for now :-). I don't quite get Bbb23's idea though. We have a massive (and I do mean massive) amount of uncited material. It probably is greater than the cited material by a fair bit in fact. Just blanking all of it would be highly destructive. I asked the question to see if he had some reason to believe the material was flawed and he didn't bite. Actions which would be destructive if everyone did them aren't a good idea. I don't mind him being honest. I mind that his actions are so problematic. But there is the joy of being an inclusionist. I see the unneeded removal of material from the project as vandalism. And that was unneeded. And Asymmetric Logical Unit Access would be a pretty horrible topic for an article IMO. It's a bit sad we debate about popular culture topics like episodes of a show seem by 50+ million people, but something like ALUA is something that would probably be kept even though only 500 people probably could even get anything of use out of a well-written article. Hobit (talk) 04:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Well, one problem with unverified material is that it's difficult to determine is something is messed with. "Do you have any reason to believe the material is flawed?" is as valid a question as "Do you have any reason to believe the material is correct?" Imagine that in an article on some medication or, worse, some sex article. Next thing you know Jimmy Wales has a lawsuit pending cause someone stuck a flat-screen TV up their ass and turned it to Tosh-0, cause Misplaced Pages said it was highly erotic. Anyway, we have to agree to disagree--but I think you know he's not going to run around as an admin imposing his standards on others. Drmies (talk) 04:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
      • As I mentioned in my !vote, I like much of what he's done. But I view this as going enough "off the rails" that I am actually worried. I've little doubt he'll make it, but I'm hopeful raising the issue will make it less likely he's misuse the bit. I do think the best outcome here would be failing and coming back having thought about it. Some of the best admins we have are deletionist-leaning admins (kww, ScottyWang) who have had to mature a bit before getting the bit. Thanks for dropping by!Hobit (talk) 04:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Oh, to respond to the philosophical point, we don't delete article or material just because it's uncited. WP:DEL and WP:V make that really quite plain. And from an outcome-based viewpoint, if I _could_ magically delete all unsourced material on Misplaced Pages with a snap of my fingers I certainly hope you'd agree that would be a horrible thing. We'd lose more than 50% of our content, and maybe as much as 80%. I'd think that would make it plain that just deleting the content without an actual doubt is a bad idea. WP:BLPPROD is an exception and the only one I know of to this general rule. Hobit (talk) 04:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

SudoGhost 02:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

DRV bot proposal

Can you take a look at WT:DRV#DRV bot request? Thanks a lot. T. Canens (talk) 15:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Sally

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Princess_Sally_Acorn

I'd like to get your thoughts on this, since you were the one who undid the redirect on the grounds that you'd like some discussion to take place.

Also, for the record, there has already been quite a bit of discussion on it, it just happened to be on my talk page. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Sergecross73#Sally

Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 15:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• Ah, didn't think to check your talk page. I'll look more closely in a bit (day or two probably) if that's okay. Hobit (talk) 15:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
  • No problem. I had never bothered to make the conversation more readily available to read, because it seemed like a pretty open and shut case. The redirect had initially been undone after 2 years, purely based on a uninformed user who felt it should exist because worse articles existed out there. Then the conversation degraded into rage that "fan art didn't count towards the WP:GNG". But by all means, feel free to peruse... Sergecross73 msg me 15:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
    • OK, had time to read this. I agree it should be a redirect. Hobit (talk) 15:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Thanks for hearing me out. I've changed it back, now that I've got your support. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 16:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Ashton Kutcher on Twitter

I have proposed broadening there. Please join in. --George Ho (talk) 17:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which I withdrew roughly one hour prior to the deadline. I appreciate your sentiments — it's great to know that my imput is valued. Hopefully we'll continue to bump into each other around the place.

Take care. =) Master&Expert (Talk) 22:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Ashton Kutcher on Twitter

Since you were a discussant at User_talk:Fram#Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion.2FAshton_Kutcher_on_Twitter_.282nd_nomination.29, you may want to comment at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2012 August 20.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

St. Jimmy

At one point I didn't even care about the article anymore. I couldn't take the hypocrisy of some of the editors I was talking to. I probably could have behaved better, But I was simply acting out of emotion and was upset no one was understanding my points. ~EDDY ~ 02:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Jared Lee Loughner#RFC: To atheist or not to atheist

Thank you for your eloquent, comprehensive closure of Talk:Jared Lee Loughner#RFC: To atheist or not to atheist and your generally excellent work at WP:ANRFC. I've noticed that you've cited Misplaced Pages:Non-admin closure at the end of each of your closures. While I have no objection to your continuing to do so, I don't think it's accurate or necessary. WP:NAC only discusses deletion discussions, so I don't think it's accurate to cite it in an RfC closure. I also don't think admins can unilaterally overturn any non-admin closures of RfCs about content because admins do not have the exclusive power or special competence to rule on content outside of XfD. This current WP:AN discussion makes for an excellent read if you haven't been following it. In fact, in my observations, I've found that your closures demonstrate policy cluefulness, depth, and insight far superior to a few administrator closures I've seen. Please continue your good work at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• I agree the link I'm linking to with the NAC isn't the right one, but I *do* want to make it clear I'm not pretending to be an admin and the link makes it obvious. Maybe I'll write an essay on the topic and link to that :-).

But thank you very much for your kind words. I find I'm not a good content writer, but I do know my way around policy discussions well enough to be able to read and condense long discussions. I may have found a home (at least until work starts up again at full speed--the joys of teaching...) Hobit (talk) 02:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you can say "(non-admin closure)" at the end of your closing rationale with no link at all (though a link to an essay on the topic that emphasized admins have not special control over content would be better). Misplaced Pages:Non-admin closure#Pitfalls to avoid states: "Extra care should be taken if a closure may be controversial or not clearly unambiguous. With the understanding that the closure may be reversed, non-admins should generally avoid closing such discussions." Linking to the essay gives the impression that your closures of controversial RfCs can be unilaterally overturned by an admin, which is unacceptable because admins do not have special control over content. I look forward to reading more of your closures before you return to the important job of enriching and educating the minds of students hungry for knowledge. Best, Cunard (talk) 02:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you again for another insightful close at Misplaced Pages talk:Username policy/Archive 19#RfC - Handling promotional usernames. I've had no luck at getting an admin to follow Misplaced Pages:Administrators#Accountability regarding his inadequately explained RfC closes (diff). It's unfortunate that all closers can't be as willing to explain themselves as you are. Cunard (talk) 02:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't look good, I agree. That said, the username RfC close kinda sucked because I just couldn't see a good way forward. Oh well... Hobit (talk) 05:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the discussion at the username RfC was too disparate to reach a firm consensus for any changes, but you made the best of it by listing the three principles that had appreciable consensus. Hopefully, the ongoing RfC at Misplaced Pages talk:Username policy#RfC: Hard/soft blocks of promotional usernames will reach a consensus or the RfC proposer will be better next time at framing the RfC to allow for concrete proposals. Cunard (talk) 05:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Chuckle. Just saw this as I was scrolling to the bottom of this page. I am the RfC proposer in question. To be candid, my intention was not to frame the discussion around anything specific. I simply wanted to use the RfC to generate some general discussion on a mostly unwatched talk page, in order to get a feel for some prevailing thoughts before I considered discreet issues, like specific block types, etc. I understand that this is not exactly orthodox of RfCs . . but I don't think all RfCs need to be concrete, or officially closed . . especially that one, which is why I didn't request one. But it was still of course useful. A good mental exercise for Hobit, if anything. NTox · talk 04:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Like I need those :-). In any case, I think the second RfC was a bit more clear and focused. Hobit (talk) 14:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The RfC began with the questions: "When should usernames in the form of a company, organization, group, website, product, or internet address be blocked from editing? Should they be blocked immediately? Should they be blocked only when they have edited in the topic area connected to the name (constructively or not)?" When I listed it at WP:ANRFC, I found the questions posed to be reasonable and specific. However, I had not read the entire discussion, so didn't know the RfC devolved into too many disparate issues that rendered assessing the consensus to be difficult. Cunard (talk) 06:47, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• Speaking of eloquent closes, I got an eloquent revert of a close: "This is wrong." Drmies (talk) 19:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, that is a fun response. That _was_ a hard one to close and hits on nationalistic issues that are pretty raw which just amplifies the issues. Enjoy the fallout. (For the record, I don't see how else it could have been closed). Hobit (talk) 21:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
    • See my talk page. Apparently I know nothing at all, but fortunately I have some smart people telling me what to do. Drmies (talk) 21:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
      • I can see why they are frustrated--I'd just urge you to be a bit more patient with them. It _is_ odd that Misplaced Pages is using an old name for the island rather than what it is generally called today. But WP:COMMONNAME would seem to nearly require it. I'd suggest to them they should take their comments to WP:COMMONNAME (which maybe they already have) and see if folks agree with them that the broader guideline is mistaken and modern usage should trump older (though more highly published) usage. But I tend to AGF more than is perhaps healthy for me. Plus, frankly, it doesn't matter as either name will get them to the article so my level of empathy is a bit on the low side. Hobit (talk) 02:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
        • Well, it's at Move Review now, or whatever it's called. Funny--as I said elsewhere, history seems to move toward the Turkish name and the Greek name is fighting a losing battle. Troy may win after all! But evidence brought forward suggests it does not seem to be there yet, and that discussion got at least partly derailed by an SPA and some possible IP socking, not to mention too much heat and not enough light. It's been going on for six years... Drmies (talk) 19:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

• I didn't want to follow up on the RM or whatever about Bozcaada to avoid cluttering and am really just trying to understand better, not trying to refight points. You say that the move is reasonable because 10:1 usage outweighs official name. Cool, I agree that is (and probably should be the rule). My problem is that the 10 are talking about an island in the Odyssey (which, by the way, may not even be this island) and the 1 is talking about the actual island as it exists. I'm fine with the rule being 10:1 usage outweighs official name, but my reading of the naming conventions for geographic places is 1. "When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it." (emphasis on modern context added by me) and 2. If there isn't a common English name, which since every atlas and Encyclopedia uses Bozcaada, I think saying Tenedos is the common name is highly problematic, "the modern official name, in articles dealing with the present...should be used." I'm fine if community understanding says these don't matter, but no one explained to me this on the discussion they just accused me and repeated Google Books raw hit counts. So my question is this: When 10 is talking about a literary place in the past, and 1 is talking about the actual place as it exists, why are we ignoring the modern context and official name guidelines? I'm cool if that's what the norm is, but it isn't what the guidelines say to me and no one on the Bozcaada discussion would even talk about it with me (despite multiple pleas for us to talk about this point). Thanks very much for the time. AbstractIllusions (talk) 01:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Spent some time reading and thinking about this. You have a valid point IMO. We've got two guidelines that do seem to be somewhat contradictory (one places a lot more weight on the modern name than the other). While I still think the closer made the best call given the split !vote and both sides having valid policy to stand on, I will admit I might well have !voted with the move side (but I'd have still closed with the non-move side). Hobit (talk) 00:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• Good points all around, I appreciate your time on the issue. I'm not sure I have a valid point (or not) honestly, but it appears to me that community norms and community guidelines are not quite inline with one another (maybe this is the source of the different community guidelines that are contradictory). And, as someone new to the community, such discrepancies cause significant problems for understanding a) appropriate claims that are in the guidelines but against norms and b) claims that convince people. I'm sure I'll figure out how the community is reading and delineating the various guidelines and their provisions with more time (although the love for google books, which is an atrocious resource when you open it up, will remain mystifying), and hopefully more engagement with experienced users like yourself. Despite any disagreements with the reasoning, I do respect the closer for making the call in a tough situation and honestly think the closer did a good job. Thank you very much for your time. AbstractIllusions (talk) 01:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the very civil and insightful comments! We'll see how it goes.Hobit (talk) 02:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

D&D monster list

If you are concerned about preserving information on D&D monsters, you may be interested in joining the discussion at Talk:List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 21:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

One question added after your vote

Thanks much for voting. When we put the RfC together, one thing we were all agreed on was that it should run a week, so that it didn't take too much time away from more central questions ... but we decided not to put that in the RfC, I think because we didn't want to force a cutoff in the middle of a good debate. At this point, I've added that question, if you'd like to vote on that one too. - Dank (push to talk) 15:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

You may be interested in this discussion. I'm notifying you because you participated in the first deletion discussion and/or the deletion review. LadyofShalott 16:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC close

Hi, Hobit. You may have noticed that I put in a close request for the RfC at WT:U - see this entry. Thought you might be a good choice to look at it since you have the context as the closer of the other one. Have a good one. NTox · talk 03:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

And it is not as abstract as that one, too. NTox · talk 04:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Your service there is appreciated. Can't be easy. NTox · talk 18:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

No worries. In general I'd watch out for asking specific folks to close things, it can be argued to introduce a bias in some way (because you liked work by that person in the past or because they might think more favorably of you in the future or some other reason someone comes up with). If that RfC were a close call I'd likely have skipped it on that basis. Best to made a more generic appeal. Hobit (talk) 18:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks for the tip. NTox · talk 18:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm probably a lot more paranoid about that stuff than most, so take it with a big grain of salt. :-) Hobit (talk) 18:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that generally, approaching specific editors for closes is inadvisable. But I found it acceptable in this circumstance because you had closed the previous related RfC and thus could take it into account in your assessment of the second RfC. Second, you hadn't expressed an opinion on the matter after your close and remained uninvolved, so I don't see anything improper here. However, had the discussion been contentious, I agree that approaching you may lead other RfC participants to use that as an excuse for having the judgment voided so you would have been wise to avoid closing it based on a specific request. Cunard (talk) 06:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Good faith

Thank you for demonstrating good faith on AN/I. I didn't intend any gloating and I don't see any gloating in the notice, so I would think that the right thing to do would be to ask me about my intentions instead of assuming the worst. If it had gone that route, we'd all have avoided a trip to the drama factory. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Yep, but at the same time when tempers are tight, the best thing to do is strike a comment like that once someone objects. I'd have been pissed about someone removing the comment if I'd meant it in good faith/humor, but I still suggest the best course of action is to let it go. In any case, good luck! Hobit (talk) 23:32, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I almost always strike anything that someone objects to, just so long as it seems plausible that it might actually be viewed as uncivil by someone. Here, I just didn't see it, and still don't. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Like I said, I can see it if I squint. It could be viewed as taunting someone who can't respond. Hobit (talk) 23:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Category Freemasons Proposed Deletion

Hi, as you were a contributor to a previous DRV on the Freemasons category there is another deletion discussion on this. JASpencer (talk) 16:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Some holiday cheer

		Holiday Cheer
		Michael Q. Schmidt is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings.

Merry Christmas!

BOZ (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Content creation

Hi Hobit, how is it going? I was wondering what you have done on Misplaced Pages in terms of content creation. I can't seem to find much, is that correct? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• True enough, my interest is mainly in policy and dispute resolution. My I ask why you asked the question? Hobit (talk) 13:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Sure. I liked your edits on the Last Res0rt DRV, finding what I think is the right balance between policy, common sense, and ignoring all rules, without being afraid of reprimanding everyone messing up there - which pretty much was everybody, emphatically including me. I find those properties very important, and to me, that reads as good possible admin material. I was checking your edits for what I thought your chances would be for a possible RfA, and if it was a reasonable investment for me to continue investigating, to see if I should offer to nominate you. I saw very little content work, which could be problematic in case you would be tempted to accept a nomination. Being lazy, I figured I'd ask you, rather than going through all your mainspace edits. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the nice thoughts. I get a bit defensive about my lack of content creation. It is the most important work we do here and I suck at it. I'm good at finding sources, okay at sourcing articles (I tackled a dozen or so BLPs in the aftermath of the BLP-prod stuff) and I've created a couple, but on the whole I find it very difficult to write sourced content. Which is weird, because I probably write 20+ pages of text a week for work. It's just very different writing. Hobit (talk) 14:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Your comments at AN

G'day Hobit. Thanks for your support at AN. If my case needs to be accounted for, then I'd be happy to help you in any efforts to make that happen. I'm concerned with fluffernutter's comments, for example, because he has forgotten that by registering, students may allow themselves to be contacted (through their talkpages). For me personally, unrestricted access to communicate with my students... That seems like a nono against COPPA (which, by the way, does affect Misplaced Pages because of infrastructure and wikimedia in the US).

For the record, in Australia we have more restrictive laws etc. than COPPA. While I have permission for student work to be published online and elsewhere, allowing students to register at Misplaced Pages would be a completely different story. ˜danjel  01:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• Yep, I see exactly where you are coming from. That said, I'm in the situation of agreeing with you on nearly every issue I've seen but being troubled by the way you've dealt with some of those issues. I'd urge you to not be so passionate about issues here. You are trying to "right great wrongs" (things I see as wrong also) but are probably hurting your cause in many cases more than helping it. Your interactions with TParis got _way_ over the top IMO. I think he could have handled things better (he's philosophically more in line with Epeefleche than you which I think led to some unconscious bias), but you made it way too personal. He's a good guy and good admin (though one I often disagree with). I'd urge you to just step away from the issue for a while (I really like the idea of you and E not interacting...), though I realize that can feel a lot like giving up on something you care about. I've had to do it from time to time... Eh, my 2 cents. Best of luck, Hobit (talk) 13:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

You have to remember that one of the reasons we forbid role accounts is that there is no way to ensure proper copyright licensing if we don't know which person performed an edit. Unless every single person entrusted with an account's log-in was a signatory to a valid and binding perpetual contract, they have not waived their right to claim copyright in their edits. Nothing is supposed to go into Misplaced Pages which is not fully licensed under our terms and conditions, in order to facilitate re-use and republication. How could we do that if some parent in Old North Woolloomooloo could come along and say, "Our Deirdre wrote that when she was eleven, and we claim AU$5,000,000,000 for violating her copyright in her edits!"? --Orange Mike | Talk 03:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• • A very good point. That said, I suspect this can be easily dealt with. Not exactly sure _how_ or if it's worth the cost, but that's why we discuss... Hobit (talk) 05:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The context in which I'm working is that schools have releases that allow for publication of student work online, signed by the student themselves and parent/guardian. It is often specified that this publication may be in any form, although it is also often specified that their work be anonymised to hinder/prevent identification of individual students or an individual student's work (so the form at the school at which all of MrJuddsStudents edit have occured specified that student work will be anonymous or, at most, first name only). I suspect that schools in other countries have similar such forms. This is the only way that we can work, for example, with things like wikispaces, prezi, or Edmodo, which are used in (almost) every class from Year 2 up (and I know of some schools that use these services from K up), where group accounts are occasionally used (for example in groupwork), and where all of which have TOS's that deal with the way that IP is managed (just as Misplaced Pages does). OrangeMike: If you don't mind my asking, why were/are you not raising this as an issue at, either the AN thread, my talkpage, or on User talk:MrJuddsStudents? If not through the AN thread, how did you stumble upon the issue? ˜danjel  05:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, the username came up on one of our noticeboards as an obvious role account name, which is simply and flatly forbidden under our current rules, with no room for discretion. In order to create an account like this legitimately, you'd have to change the rules beforehand, which for the reasons I outlined would probably run afoul of our legal beagles. No hostility toward Danjel or any of the kids themselves was involved in any way; I'm a Campus Ambassador myself. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive244#Violation_of_WP:NOSHARE, and separately at ANI. But by that time the the issue had been closed, and had been noted as closed at ANI. If you disagreed with the closer, why couldn't you have reopened the thread? ˜danjel  01:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

All right, I'll admit it, I'm lazy. Are we being told that in fact Orangemike just went ahead and blocked the account regardless of the noticeboard outcome? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Demiurge1000: yes. The thread at AN was closed at 05:30, January 29, 2013 AEDT (diff), the account was notified that it was blocked at 07:47, January 31, 2013 AEDT (diff), and the thread was archived at 08:04, January 31, 2013 AEDT (diff). So, I might have been wrong wherever I said that the thread had already been archived. ˜danjel  01:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

There are a few things I need to discuss with Philippe, so I'll add this to the list. I'm famously indolent, so don't expect me to get round to it quickly. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand any part of what you said just then. What list? Who's Philippe? ˜danjel  01:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

He's the Wikimedia Foundation's legal beagle aforementioned. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Mike - sorry for not being clearer. (For absolute clarity, Geoff Brigham is the legal beagle, but I normally ask Philippe things first because Philippe has often been asked a similar question many times before, and thus already knows the answer.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:09, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• Funny how this concern about copyright doesn't extend to people editing from shared IP's. Or PR firms hired by the foundation. Or WMF staff. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
• RfC here for those of you who wish to contribute. Hobit (talk) 21:12, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Kelly Chang Rickert

Hi, I have responded to your question at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kelly Chang Rickert. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks, that was quite detailed! Hobit (talk) 19:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

RAN

I've always had the sense that he "gets it" in terms of copyright, but the CCI mess made it look like he was a satanic copyright babykiller. I took a couple hours today deconstructing that. His early material under investigation, circa 2006 and thereabouts, is a mess with about 46% of the pages edited found problematic (n=258) , but the 10th subpage, with the new material, is almost completely "clean" (99.7%, n=298). In short, he does "get it." He doesn't make his lot any easier by having the typical Grumpy Old Content Creator personality (as do I), but he does "get it." The key, I think, is that he does need to serve time in the penalty box for breaking the topic ban, he does need to have very specific instructions and limitations about graphics uploads and external linking, and he does need to have his creation ban relaxed — because, as you may know, a content-creator who can't start articles is pretty much paralyzed and winds up watching TV instead of editing... You might consider volunteering your services as a "copyright advisor" since I'm clearly a non-starter in that department owing to ANI fisticuffs. Anyway, progress forward, hopefully this will all be resolved rapidly at ANI if ArbCom declines the case. Carrite (talk) 01:13, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah, I generally agree. I'm not able to help out much -- too busy with the rest of life and the last thing I need is something pressing to do on Misplaced Pages. But BOZ (an admin) has expressed at least a bit of interest with helping out (after I asked him...) Hobit (talk) 02:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, friend

(I think you're up on this, Hobit, this is pro forma...) I have written a proposed remedy to the Richard Arthur Norton affair, to be taken to AN/I in the event that ArbCom defers the case. Since the original thread is hatted, the proposal has been made on his talk page (User_talk:Richard_Arthur_Norton_(1958-_)). As you were a participant in the original thread, I would very much appreciate your comments as to whether the proposed remedy satisfies your concerns. Thanks, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 23:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) arbitration case opened

An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 23, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ 03:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Notification of discussion

A few months ago, you participated in a discussion on Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know about Gibraltar-related DYKs on the Main Page. I am proposing that the temporary restrictions on such DYKs, which were imposed in September 2012, should be lifted and have set out a case for doing so at Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know/Gibraltar-related DYKs. If you have a view on this, please comment at that page. Prioryman (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Epeefleche

You may or may not be aware that the RFC/U on Epeefleche's approach to removing easily and obviously verifiable content has closed. Epeefleche essentially ignored you and I, and refused to respond to the main point of my criticism. The closing admin, also, has gone on to completely ignore your and my perspectives also in taking Epeefleche's side. Yes, there was a roughly two-thirds split against my position (keeping in mind that there was some circumstantial evidence of offwiki canvassing, including that Epeefleche has a background of doing exactly that), but that's not a unanimous enough reason to categorically ignore one side, and then to criticise me. This is an outright endorsement of the strategies and approaches used by Epeefleche's side, i.e., that wikidramamongering is an effective defence against any criticism and to silence opponents.

I no longer care. This is the final nail in the coffin as far as I'm concerned regarding the culture at wikipedia. I have retired, primarily due to the admin conduct around the wikidrama of this RFC/U, and do not intend to return. There are other communities around the web that I have found which are far less combative and far less tolerant of dramamongers, and perhaps I'll see you there. ˜danjel  00:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Lifting the Gibraltar DYK restrictions

A couple of months ago, you opposed a proposal to lift the restrictions on Gibraltar-related DYKs, which were imposed in September 2012. Could you possibly clarify (1) under what conditions you would support a lifting of the restrictions, and (2) when you think it would be appropriate to lift the restrictions? Prioryman (talk) 20:13, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• I'm honestly at the point that I think they need to stay, perhaps for years. That there was such a large conflict of interest that hurt Misplaced Pages was troubling. That folks continually are trying to remove a limitation which _should_ be irrelevant (as it should be a really small fraction of DYKs) worries me. Hobit (talk) 00:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• I guess the question is what purpose would be served by continuing the restrictions. What do you see as their continued purpose? Prioryman (talk) 22:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• To prevent further abuse. I can't see how the restrictions could be harmful and I get the sense that removing them might be. Hobit (talk) 05:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Does that apply to all the restrictions? For instance, there is a restriction on the frequency of Gibraltar-related DYKs (1 per day maximum), another requiring two reviewers, another restricting who can conduct reviews. Do you envisage a situation in which a gradual lifting of the restrictions might be an alternative to lifting them in one go? Prioryman (talk) 07:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• At some point, sure--I'd prefer to see them go slowly than quickly just to be careful. But in my mind that point may (ideally) be years away. Weighing the pros vs. cons of keeping these restrictions around leads me to think that pros greatly outweigh the cons. There is no good reason they should be having a significant impact--these type of DYK nominations should be extremely rare given the nature of the topic. Hobit (talk) 14:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• I'm genuinely confused as to why you say "these type of DYK nominations should be extremely rare given the nature of the topic." What is it about the nature of the topic that would make the nominations extremely rare? Prioryman (talk) 18:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• Same thing that would make DYK nominations about Northern Indiana rare: it's a fairly small geographic area given the world as a whole. I very much doubt a restriction on Northern Indiana articles that are the same as the ones proposed here would be problematic because they'd impact so few articles. I also suspect these restrictions would have had minimal impact as written, say 3 years ago. Do you disagree with either of those statements? If so, I'd be interested in a count on either of those cases of DYKs. Hobit (talk) 03:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure Northern Indiana would be the best comparison given that territory is bigger than 19 European countries! For the sake of comparison, there have been 85 DYKs on Gibraltar in the last year, compared to 115 on Indonesia, 112 on mushrooms, 277 on the Olympics or 128 on the Paralympics (see the table at User:Prioryman/DYK data). Nobody has complained that we've had too many on any topic other than Gibraltar. But it's an inappropriate comparison for another reason. Gibraltar has historically been very under-covered on Misplaced Pages, not least because Internet access there has been slow and expensive - not many people from the territory have been able to contribute to Misplaced Pages. Until recently it's had very little presence on DYK (6 DYK hooks mentioning Gibraltar in 2008, 7 in 2009, 5 in 2010 and only 1 in 2011). The recent expansion in coverage has been about catching up, in a sense. One additional point is that a limit on DYKs for any topic would be completely arbitrary. Who decides whether one topic should receive more or less coverage than another? On what criteria? Prioryman (talk) 09:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• Why not catch something else up? Say Northern Indiana. Or any place else. The issues that caused this to be an issue are a darn fine reason to keep the restrictions. Again, I don't see significant harm in keeping them but I do see that the area caused significant harm in the past and is too much of a risk going into the future. Hobit (talk) 03:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• OK, thanks for your feedback. Prioryman (talk) 23:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your sensible comments regarding my DRV request. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Although Pigsonthewing did not articulate a reasoned objection to the close, you (Hobit) did. Based on those objections, changing the outcome of the AFD to "withdrawn" was an appropriate step to take, so I endorse Spartaz's resolution and I hope it addressed your concerns. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I gave my reasoning not once but twice on MZMcBride;s talk page, the second time in reply to your request; then again in the DRV request. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

As I noted on Spartaz's talk page, it was a good close and addressed the needed points. Thanks to all.Hobit (talk) 16:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Alansohn discussion at ANI

I've responded to the most recent messages, which includes evidence of the same behavior on Alan's part over the course of at least the past 6 years, and a call for a resolution. Can you please offer your thoughts? Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 04:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• That's a lot of text. Might indicate an RFC/U is the next step. But you'll need another endorser. In my _very_ quick look at things, I'd say the issues are on both sides, but I haven't looked deeply enough to form a real opinion. I will try to do so in the next couple of days, but no promises. Hobit (talk) 22:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Happy Memorial Day!

AutomaticStrikeout  ?  is wishing you a Happy Memorial Day! On this day, we recognize our fellow countrymen who have fought our nation's battles for the past several hundred years, protecting our freedom and safety. We remember those who paid the ultimate price and we support those who continue to willingly sacrifice their safety for the sake of their country. Happy Memorial Day!

Share this message by adding {{subst:Memorial Day}} to a fellow American's talk page.

Talkback

Reconsider

Since you mentioned the oppose rationale, i thought you'd be interested in reading my oppose in WP:Requests for adminship/Adjwilley. Pass a Method talk 01:47, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Help. Article for deletion

Hi. Thanks for your comments on my DRV jagger eaton. This seems to be languishing in DVR. Is there anything that can be done to move this forward? Anything you can do to help? Thanks. Labeach2002 (talk) 17:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

FAC RfC close

Hi Hobit, I just wanted to say thanks for closing that RfC. I think you read consensus well and explained the close very clearly. Good work! Mark Arsten (talk) 18:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks Mark. I was more than mildly nervous about it, so I appreciate your feedback! Hobit (talk) 20:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks from me too for closing it in the first place, and for your explanation and suggestions too. Bencherlite 13:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks! Hobit (talk) 15:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Evidence phase open - Manning naming dispute

Dear Hobit.

This is just a quick courtesy notice. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 19, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon 23:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Michigan Wikipedians

Greetings Hobit! I noticed that you made mention of the University of Michigan or Ann Arbor on your userpage. If you are a current student, faculty, or other affiliate at the University of Michigan, I would like to welcome you, on behalf of the Michigan Wikipedians, to our next weekly meeting on Monday September 30 (and every Monday thereafter). The meetings are held at 8:00 PM (EDT) in the University of Michigan Shapiro Library, room 4041. New and experienced editors alike are most welcome. Do not hesitate to leave me a message if you have any questions, and feel free to stop by the MWiki talk page. The Michigan Wikipedians are excited to meet you! Arbitrarily0  00:24, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Johnmoor possible paid editing?

I noticed your comments at User_talk:Johnmoor#Paid_editing.3F. Do you have any evidence, or is this just a WP:DUCK concern? I'm currently considering having his behavior reviewed at ANI given his WP:OWN problems with Grammarly. --Ronz (talk) 18:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I've looked a bit closer at his editing, and I think your concerns are justified. Still, did you find evidence or is this a WP:DUCK concern? --Ronz (talk) 21:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• Big time DUCK. Though his ability to get pictures released by the subject is perhaps the strongest evidence. I have a really good imagination, but I'm having a very hard time imagining who would pick these subjects and argue so much for them unless they had a massive COI. Hobit (talk) 07:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to step in, but I've had Johnmoor listed as an ODesk-based paid editor for a while. The Grammarly article was recreated by MooshePorkFace from an ad in Elance in January 2012, and then deleted again after MooshiePorkFace was detected. I don't have a record of Johnmoor being hired to recreate it, and the employer from Elance hasn't hired anyone since, but it could be a private job on ODesk or one where the employer was more careful (after the previous result) of identifying the project. I can't link to the ODesk account, as Johnmoor uses his real name and I don't wish to out him. - Bilby (talk) 08:13, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

"I've had Johnmoor listed as an ODesk-based paid editor for a while." Thanks for stepping in. Could you elaborate? Even without a coi, his behavior is extremely problematic. With a coi, I think it's a simple block, maybe even indef block. A strong coi-case would make it all much simpler.

MooshiePorkFace (talk · contribs)? Sounds extremely familiar... I noticed from article logs that Johnmoor has recreated deleted articles that were previously part of spam/coi/sock investigations, I haven't taken the time to track down the relevant accounts and discussions. If he's socking, then this will be very simple indeed. --Ronz (talk) 15:46, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Johnmoor I identified a while back, as he is quite open on ODesk and had a lot of contracts through there - in the order of about 40 in the last 2 years. I did raise it with him at one point, but generally he's been one of the less problematic paid editors - mostly the usual semi-notable BLPs and company articles, with only a couple of cases of spam jobs that were reverted.

The connection with MooshiePorkFace was interesting, but I've never felt that they were the same person. I haven't seen any evidence of socking, as that's one of the things I would have acted on, but I'll check what I have and see if I missed something. It isn't unusual for clients to hire an editor after their article was deleted, either because the previous contractor was unable to protect it, or because they tried to make it themselves. - Bilby (talk) 01:23, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Probably no direct socking then. I'm not clear on the community's reactions to paid editing. I'm going to take it to WP:COIN and see what happens. He's certainly not following WP:COI. --Ronz (talk) 02:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Please let me know when you've posted something at COIN Ronz... Hobit (talk) 03:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at COIN. --Ronz (talk) 16:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Reply

For the record, I do not do any paid editing, because it's not time-income effective for me. If a client asks me about Misplaced Pages I may advise them how to work with the community to get things done within policy, e.g. post suggestions to talk pages, announce themselves and answer any question. Once in a while I might introduce them to an editor who is willing to fix up their article in exchange for a charitable donation. My feeling is that if Misplaced Pages gets a better article, the business receives value and pays for it, and the editor is happy that some charity benefited, then it is ethical. Jehochman 17:42, 20 October 2013 (UTC)