User talk:Hobit/Archive6

]

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Hobit. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, 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 DR goes to Wikimania! 12:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply ]

You've been mentioned

FYI, just a heads-up that I've mentioned you in the course of a discussion about Fae at

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 Wikipedia, 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)[reply]

• From requested articles:
  Space frontier - Upstaging. Enjoy, Drmies (talk) 02:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • Oh, to respond to the philosophical point, we don't delete article or material just because it's uncited.
        WP:V make that really quite plain. And from an outcome-based viewpoint, if I _could_ magically delete all unsourced material on Wikipedia 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)[reply
        ]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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/wiki/User_talk:Sergecross73#Sally

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

• 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)[reply]
  • 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
    WP:GNG". But by all means, feel free to peruse... Sergecross73 msg me 15:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • OK, had time to read this. I agree it should be a redirect. Hobit (talk) 15:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]

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

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. =)

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 ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your eloquent, comprehensive closure of

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)[reply]

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). Wikipedia: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)[reply]

Thank you again for another insightful close at Wikipedia talk:Username policy/Archive 19#RfC - Handling promotional usernames. I've had no luck at getting an admin to follow Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

• Speaking of eloquent closes, I got an eloquent revert of a close: "This is wrong." Drmies (talk) 19:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • I can see why they are frustrated--I'd just urge you to be a bit more patient with them. It _is_ odd that Wikipedia 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in

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)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi, Hobit. You may have noticed that I put in a close request for the RfC at WT:U -

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

		Holiday Cheer
		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.

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.

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

• 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

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

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 Wikipedia would be a completely different story. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 01:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

• • 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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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 [ talk | contribs ] 05:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yes, Wikipedia: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 [ talk | contribs ] 01:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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? --

talk) 20:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

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 [ talk | contribs ] 01:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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. --

talk) 01:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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.) --

talk) 20:09, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

• 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)[reply]
• RfC here for those of you who wish to contribute. Hobit (talk) 21:12, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

• 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 Wikipedia. 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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at

A few months ago, you participated in a discussion on Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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 [ talk | contribs ] 00:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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 Wikipedia, not least because Internet access there has been slow and expensive - not many people from the territory have been able to contribute to Wikipedia. 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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.

Hello, Hobit. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2013_June_17.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Since you mentioned the oppose rationale, i thought you'd be interested in reading my oppose in

Hello, Hobit. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
Message added 02:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Thanks from me too for closing it in the first place, and for your explanation and suggestions too.

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

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 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia: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, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon ^talk 23:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Hobit! I noticed that you made mention of the

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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.

talk) 15:46, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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

talk) 02:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

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

I've started a discussion at

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 ^Talk 17:42, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. I do think the question was reasonable given what you do for a living. It sounds like you are involved in paid editing (matching clients with editors would be involved IMO) and you should probably mention that when discussing related editing issues per
  WP:COI. Hobit (talk) 18:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • No, thanks. I don't need to endure more assumptions of bad faith. Where do we draw the line? May I ask, who are you and what do you do in real life? It can be fun to ask the questions, but not always so much to be on the receiving end of an inquisition. This is a free encyclopedia that anybody can edit. Let's keep it loose and not subject people to inquests. Just look at the edits. The editors are all mysteries. Jehochman ^Talk 04:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have a known COI here. Per
      WP:COI you should be declaring it. I can bring it to COIN if you like and see what others think. But I'm very concerned that an admin who is strongly advocating for a paid editor is not declaring the conflict of interest. I think the conflict is obvious, but perhaps others will disagree. As far as who I am, my edits have not even come close to violating COI. They may well in the future (the idea of editing for my place-of-work has been brought up) but should that happen, I'll declare my COI. Hobit (talk) 05:11, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
      ]

I noticed you asked a question, and got an extremely rude and idiotic response. You were absolutely right to ask the question. You may find some answers to your question here.

Regards.24.4.37.209 (talk) 18:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the pointer, I'd not been aware this conversation had happened before. Hobit (talk) 20:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure. You may want to read this post too. 24.4.37.209 (talk) 22:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In your closure you didn't make crystal clear which of the proposals, by name, you closed with. There was no clear policy-based consensus, surely. Lots of !votes were purely "I don't like it." Lots of !votes were based on future bad acts. Lots of !votes ignored that the swarm-edits were now totally dealt with by edit filters. So: Did you mean removing the links there before the recent bot-added links (the "over 10,000 links")? Did you mean all IP-added links? Or just blankly "all links"? --Lexein (talk) 20:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I feel it's pretty clear. All links are to be removed and the site blacklisted. I'll clarify it though when I get a chance.
• As far as the closure goes, I believe that the consensus was that the ethical issues associated with the addition of those links by unapproved bots using a botnet (or something like it) made using Archive.is links too much of a risk. I honestly believe that the risk is overstated and that if done correctly there is every reason to believe that the community will allow and encourage the use of Archive.is--it seems to be a very valuable resource. But the concerns of the community about the ethics and safety of the site couldn't be ignored or discounted--there is real risk here and the way things were handled (unapproved bots, botnet) are a reasonable basis for worry. As a closer my job is to find consensus, not substitute my own views. Hobit (talk) 21:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Before I read your above comment, I asked for a single-admin review of the closure here which got moved to here:
  Wikipedia:AN#WP:Archive.is RFC request for admin review of closure
  to address things which really should be addressed in contentious closures.

Anyways, it doesn't seem logical, where there's a lot of support that's not policy based, just "I don't like it", "I don't hear you", "I fear the future"(crystal), "I fear ads"(none), "I fear SEO"(none), and ignoring that Archive.is was in use in good faith and good standing for 9 months before the swarm edits, and ignoring that edit filters already now block all IP edits adding links to Archive.is, that all that poorly-founded support should blankly be considered "consensus".

I don't think I and other registered editors in good standing should be forbidden from linking to Archive.is, when it has the only extant copy of a deadlink RS. --Lexein (talk) 22:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no relevant policy here. A lot of reasonable people had reasonable concerns and felt it would be best to remove the links and blacklist the site. The risk to Wikipedia is non-trivial. That said, I welcome any review of my close. Hobit (talk) 13:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a clarifying statement. Please let me know if anything remains unclear. Hobit (talk) 15:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making the additions and discussing, but I wasn't asking for more words, I was asking for clearer, more analytical ones. It was not my intention to split discussion - sorry - now that you're discussing at

Wikipedia:AN#WP:Archive.is RFC request for admin review of closure, let's just stay there there, because the list of points I'd like considered is there. (I've shrunk this comment as there was no reply yet). --Lexein (talk) 16:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

We have a discussion started at Talk:Theresa Obermeyer#External links section; where the official site is gone, and there is no copy at archive.org (although one existed at one time). That leaves archive.is as the last source I can locate of an archived version of the site. This is why I wanted clarification on if the closure should be interpreted similar to a blacklisting (allowing targeted white-listing if consensus exists) or if it should be interpreted as a full ban on usage of the site. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:40, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

copy of my reply at Talk:Theresa Obermeyer#External links section kept here in case others have a similar question.

The RfC concluded that we were to remove existing links no matter if added by bot or by hand and blacklist the site. Whatever mechanisms exist to get exceptions to the blacklist should also apply here. Though I would worry that whatever bot removes all the links might catch your whitelisted link also. So it might be a bit of chore. That said, I've no idea if the folks that maintain the blacklist and handle exceptions would be willing to have one here. I'm just saying the RfC doesn't prevent them from granting one. Please let me know if this is unclear in any way. Hobit (talk) 22:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - that's clear enough for me.

On a secondary issue, I've worked quite a bit in the past with both the spam blacklist and white-list ... thus far, I haven't seen archive.is listed as a "proposed addition" at

WP:SBL. Was the addition due to the RFC closure being handled outside the normal addition process? I can add it to the blacklist; but I want to ensure that I'm not bypassing other steps already being taken. For example, to avoid unintended problems for other users, it's not uncommon to remove the links prior to blacklisting the URL ... who is managing the bots intended to remove the links? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

No clues on any of the above I'm afraid. I made the rather foolish assumption that someone who cared would be on it, but I guess as closer that someone might be me. Kww do you have any thoughts on the above? I'm not an admin, so I can't add it to the blacklist. In anycase it shouldn't added until a bot runs. Hobit (talk) 23:41, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll work on a formal bot request. It's a tricky problem to do reliably without causing more damage, because the bot has to be able to detect when there is a valid replacement archive and when there is still a viable original.—Kww(talk) 01:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It may help that many (all?) archive.is additions using archiveurl= also used deadurl=no or =yes as appropriate. And I would hope, as apparently the sole archivist around here, that since there was only weak blacklisting consensus (the closer's words, not mine), that deadlink web-only (no paper version) resources for which archive.is is the only archive source will be retained unaltered. --Lexein (talk) 02:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Barek: I've made a request at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#archive.is, but I notice that there are over 27,000 links to the site, whereas the text of the RFC correctly but misleadingly said there were "over 10,000". —rybec 03:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's going on with the black listing of archive.is? I added source material to Poramadulla Central College linking directly to the article and an editor subsequently added archive.is links a secondary external link in the reference.[8]

Last I checked the blacklisting was on hold until the bot stuff happened and Kww was going to handle the bot stuff. Hobit (talk) 04:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for voting to unblock me. I'll avoid editing Latin American topics to avoid any further drama at AN. MarshalN20 | Talk 14:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am contacting you because you are one of the editors/admins who is still active now, and was aware of the

What you may not know, is that he has evidently returned and has been editing as User:Werieth since 2012, in violation of that ban. After just a year, Werieth is already causing the same sort of disruption that Betacommand did - you may experience some deja vu by reading reports made about Werieth such as the one at the top of

I and others have already tried to expose his return via

But you may or may not be surprised to learn that the people obstructing this investigation the hardest are three admins whose own conflict of interest with regard to Betacommand/NFCC is best demonstrated in their own words - Black Kite (repeatedly deflects attention away from Werieth and onto accusers), Kww (blocks accusers, and has already unblocked Werieth once) and Future Perfect at Sunrise (has basically declared all out war on anyone who even whispers that Werieth might be Betacommand).

The purpose of this post is to raise awareness about his return, and hopefully persuade one or more of you to resubmit that SPI with the evidence I'm sure you will be able to compile using your own knowledge of Betacommand's characteristic traits. At the very least to prompt you to put his talk page on your watch lists and regularly review his contributions (although obviously, don't waste your time trying to deal with any issues you see on the flawed basis that he is just any old user).

Also obviously, you should also raise a red flag every time you see one of those three admins trying to further suppress the inevitable exposure of his ban evasion. If his return is to be covered up for an unnecessarily long time, it should at least be done simply through general incompetence, rather than obvious COI based abuse of the tools/trusted position of admin. A few emails to the arbcom members who dealt with Betacommand also probably wouldn't go amiss - if ordinary admins aren't bothered about this particular user's return (and you will remember, blinded by their enthusiasm for having someone, anyone, perform NFCC enforcement edits, a great many of them were unwilling to even admit his particular approach to that necessary work was a problem),

Betacommand's clandestine return to Wikipedia is bad enough as it is given that he has simply resumed where he left off in the NFCC enforcement field, with several users already having wasted a lot of time having to deal with him as if he were a legitimate user. But obviously the nightmare scenario if the cover-up is allowed to continue for another year, is if Werieth/Betacommand decides script assisted batch editing is not fast enough for his liking, and decides to take an altogether faster approach - possibly even trying to beat his "record". HTI 483 (talk) 17:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

First of all, I wrote the Clark A. Peterson article before I ever realized he was a judge.

Then just today, I realized that Rob Bell (Virginia politician) was the same Rob Bell who worked for Iron Crown Enterprises.

John Nephew of Atlas Games was also a city councilman in Minnesota - turning the redirect into an article is on my to-do list. BOZ (talk) 03:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Most cool and good job! I've a good friend who spent many hours in ICE's "house" playing games and I've been there myself once, so ICE has always been close to my heart. Oh, and I played a Rolemaster for about a year. Sorry for the delay in responding...Hobit (talk) 20:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After reading [Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Does_the_statement_.22A_page_with_this_title_has_previously_been_deleted.22_create_a_BLP_problem.3F|this BLPN]] post today, I was curious to see where some of the project's more infamous BLP battlegrounds wound up. While not terribly high on the hits list, User:Hobit/Debrahlee Lorenzana does pop up after a few pages, where the old bio page is just a click away. Would you be willing to G7 this? 3.5 years is probably enough time for a BLP draft to stick around. Tarc (talk) 14:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah. I've looked at it twice in the last 3 months, but never did anything with it. I'll G7 it for now and if I get back to it I'll request the undelete. Thanks Tarc. Hobit (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • BTW, sorry I didn't respond sooner, I missed your note somehow. Hobit (talk) 20:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, The problem at List Of.... is that there is no community-consensed FAQ that addresses the perennial complaints at AFD. If you really want me to run down the 7 issue list in another tag, that's fine by me. As for whether they are problems or not, I direct you to AFD #6's admin closing statement.

• While I don't think there are significant problems here, the reason I removed the tag was that you had a red link under the list of problems. That tag gives a bunch of options about what you can link to, and some of them are fine for lists or other things (NPOV for example). So if you want to reformat that tag, I'll not remove it (though I think its not needed and a borderline WP:BATTLEGROUND violation given the AfDs etc.) But you need to format it to make it clear what you are getting at if you are going to have it there. Hobit (talk) 21:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was indeed lazy when I did it, instead of itemizing the various points. It's not battleground at all. I voted KEEP in the 4th 5th and 6th AFDs and the closing admin instructed us to try to work through the assertions of BLP/Notability/OriginalResearch that arise on a regular basis. Since admins regularly conclude neither side has made a compelling case, these various arguments are by definition contentious, no matter how strongly you individually feel or I individually feel. The real question is how do we bring order to chaos to try to find out how the overall community feels. Sorry if that looks Battlegroundish to you, but I'm working my butt off for a resolution within the guidelines for contentious issues. Or at least, I'm working my butt of trying to.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk

)

Understood. I don't see the point of tagging it, but... Hobit (talk) 23:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Several new proposals have been submitted at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014 since you last commented on it. You are invited to return to comment on the new proposals. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How do I go about starting a discussion to oppose the blacklisting of archive.is? That discussion was not advertised well at all, I've been adding archive.is links for months and without having done anything wrong every link I've added in all that time is about to become a victim of link rot, this is absolutely unacceptable. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dishonored's FA nom! 23:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hobit, I've started another RFC at

Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC 2 and I could use your help if willing as some users have padded unexplained edits saying it is non neutral, but I feel I've covered the consensus points from the summary and explained why I feel it should be unlisted from the blacklist. Can you give me some advice? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi, I'm working late tonight (midnight?) and have a ton to do tomorrow. That said, I should be able to find the time to take a look in the next 24 hours. Hobit (talk) 23:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Funny you said "Cool", that made me smile. I am the least cool person you could possibly imagine. I am just a bore, really, (you could think of me as E. L. Wisty) but I hope I add some of that kinda boring knowledge to Wikipedia. Si Trew (talk) 11:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I neither misunderstand nor misrepresent

• Could you please address my arguments rather than simply saying "I'm right"? Discussion is more than shouting. Also, did you actually _read_ what you deleted? Do you realize you deleted sourced material (and the cite)? Could you justify that before we address the other issues? Nothing your have said justified doing that. Hobit (talk) 05:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The sole inline citation deleted was to a YouTube video, not normally considered a
  WP:RS. The remaining paragraphs had no inline citations. The policy about restoration does not permit any alternative sourcing styles: not through blue-links, not through general sources at the bottom, only by specific inline citations.—Kww(talk) 05:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Youtube videos from confirmed sources (as is the case here) are considered reliable. I assume you don't find this one reliable. Could you explain why? (I agree it isn't independent, but that's not the issue here...) Hobit (talk) 05:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Show me the confirmation, and you would be justified in restoring the material, and only the material, supported by that citation, i.e. a description of LAURON IVc. Note that the link on the YouTube video for more information doesn't work.—Kww(talk) 05:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Kww--we can bump heads all day. But it looks like you just blindly reverted me without checking out the source you removed. While we disagree on WP:BURDEN (and I'm happy to discuss that) could you please restore the sourced material you removed or explain why it should be removed rather than claiming it's my job to fix up your removal of sourced material? Hobit (talk) 05:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Where did you demonstrate that the channel was confirmed to be a channel of a reliable source?—Kww(talk) 05:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Damn it Kevin. Look at the source. It's one click away. You removed what is obviously a reliable source--you have been here long enough it should only take you seconds to confirm this. It isn't my job to correct your errors. It shouldn't be my job to point them out. If you've looked and really can't figure it out in less than 30 seconds, I'll be happy to show you. But put in the 30 seconds of effort first. Hobit (talk) 02:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The issue here is between an article with RS listed as ELs, and an ideal article with these inlined. Instead of converting these ELs to inline cites, Red Pen took it upon himself to delete half the article. He also cited spurious reasons that these sources were "unreliable" or "commercial". In what sense is that a good, forward moving or in any way appropriate edit?

Once again, Red Pen demonstrates that he has zero interest in the progression of an encyclopedia, he merely likes chances to get to delete stuff, and the more the better. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hobit,

Thank you for your comments on ANI. I appreciate your efforts to come to a resolution on List of countries of where Arabic is an official language. I am wondering though if the recent action on that page was that which was agreed upon. At the close of the ANI post, the admin writes: "Alternative offered and agreed upon to be picked up at the talk page." This action (whether to merge two sections) was never a topic of discussion of the RfC; no editor brought it up, discussed it, or weighed the pros and cons. For that reason I kindly ask for a clarification, because it seems that the RfC did not involve that proposal and because the ANI suggests that such a proposal merits further discussion on the talk page there. Thanks again. --Precision123 (talk) 21:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, it was a bit on the bold side. If you wish to revert it, that wouldn't be edit warring or anything. Would you mind explaining your issue with the change? I just don't see why breaking this into two lists is helpful. Hobit (talk) 22:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. My issue with the process was one issue (the RfC close was handled professionally despite the odd rant by one editor who reported him to ANI). As to the merits, that section had a purpose for the article. Because the title of the article is "List of countries where...," the section provided room for territories that may or may not actually be countries to be included within the article. It is for the same reason that sections are made for such non-sovereign territories in

List of countries where German is an official language

, etc. In effect, without a special section, a place, group, or dependent territory without recognition as a country might be included in the list of countries. A special section for those places, as exists in other articles, easily solves the problem.

I generally avoid reverting, but because an RfC was just recently discussed and concluded, I think it appropriate to revert to the found consensus. I would support that if you wish to do so. In any case, thank you for your effort and explanation. Have a good weekend. --Precision123 (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In looking at the RFC for Archive.is, I read the consensus really differently than you did - but let me explain. The RFC was not neutral from its creation, the concept of "illegal activity" and malware were unsupported and dramatic, almost every aspect of the arguments were presented non-neutrally. Its fair to say that it wasn't even represented neutrally. Sorry for the length, but first I will go through all the claims and non-neutral aspects of the past RFC to highlight how the "deck was stacked" against Archive.is instead of the Rotlink user.

The entire RFC introduction to the conclusion was completely non-neutral and designed to establish a clear preference and remove the more logical options. Rotlink was the problem, not the hundreds of editors who added Archive.is links. The RFC came to the conclusion to purge Archive.is as a whole, instead of Rotlink's contributions. Even the notion that a Rotlink filter or block could and would be done was not presented. The issue has been resolved for many months and the blacklist - which had almost no consensus was created, but the removal of all the Archive.is links were not. In fact, the Rotlink additions should have been gone and only those.

Two users appealed that they would suffer because of Rotlink - not once did their arguments get any representation in the RFC. Some 15 people opted for "removal" action, but to what ends? Most on fear of malware and illicit activity and that Rotlink was Archive.is - a claim that is not supported and by an editor who deviated from all norms and processes to further the blocking and action against Archive.is whilst making errors in their system and server sizes. False flag, perhaps, or just someone who acts irrationally and doesn't care about either Wikipedia or Archive.is's reputation? Either way, the issue has passed and the Archive.is filter was later removed and reinstated by Kww in wheel warring, and did not work completely - it is trivial to bypass to this date. When I noted that the site was at Archive.today (due to a top-level domain issue) it was Kww who proclaimed that they did it to bypass the blacklist. On all accounts, Kww did this during the Admin noticeboard discussion and plopped it on the Bot Approvals notice. Even his BAG was not accurate and added details on May 16 to the mounting opposition - something which should have been present from the get go. Kww may mean well, but he's hardly a neutral party and the claims made have been done with the intention of garnering as much support regardless of the facts of the case.

Its clear that a new and neutral RFC needs to be done - I'd like someone experienced and independent to make it. There should be no discussion of malware and illicit activity and it should focus on the fact numerous editors use Archive.is and it has thousands of GameSpot links which are not held by Archive.org or Webcite due to issues. Robots.txt is not applicable to manual snapshots either, but that's more "debatable". Sorry for the extremely long post, but this was just the beginning of how the past RFC had numerous red flags that should be avoided next time. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and Archive.is isn't actually on a blacklist - it'd break all the pages. Kww made an edit filter which is a different process. Its actually causing numerous issues with people even trying to revert vandalism.[9] Kww lead against Archive.is, created the RFC, made the edit filter and reinstated it after its removal... I'm concerned about all this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:15, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, I think I understand your point-of-view better now, though I don't know that I agree with the RfC being biased. I think the numeric consensus and general sense of the RfC left little doubt about how to handle these links and I think I'd close it the same way again (though with some clarifications in hindsight). All that said, if you put together an RfC, I'll be happy to help edit it and get it to be neutral. I'd rather not start it, as I really don't have a horse in this race (other than my responsibility as closer) and it's a bad idea for anyone to start an RfC on something if they don't actually care about the coutcome. That said, I'd like us to do the right thing, whatever that may be. As far as Kww goes, I have long viewed him as someone who sees things starkly--in black and white if you will. Just recognize that he (like you IMO) can be a pain in the rear, but has the interests of the Encyclopedia in mind. So try not to personalize the issue, it won't help. As you can see above and in my edit history, he and I have bumped heads a lot, so I speak from experience. Let me know what you want to do. Hobit (talk) 12:46, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, to clarify, I'd base the RfC on
    WP:CCC and the fact that no problems with archive.is have sprung up in the last few months rather than arguing that the RfC was non-neutral. It will just be more likely to get a fair hearing, and frankly is the stronger argument. Hobit (talk) 12:48, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]

A numeric consensus goes against the whole !vote matter according to policy, hence my concern with it. To discount or outright ignore the whole body of contributing editors and condemn the whole because of a single editor is more than a "black and white" definition in my eyes. Kww said the initial post was neutral, but the arguments were not - though I disagree because of the above, but you are correct about the premise. I know Kww is trying to do good for Wikipedia - its just the continued action is not helping. I've made numerous requests to see the activity regarding that edit filter (its private and not even admins can see it) and it most certainly has no active need - even the Archive.is owner denies being Rotlink. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:47, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I think the next step is to just start a new RfC. Not much else is going to settle this. As I mentioned, if you start working on it, I'll help edit it and get it ready to go. Hobit (talk) 18:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To answer a few questions above, there are 4559 hits on filter 559 to date. The reason I referred to myself in the third person in the RFC is not to pretend that I'm not me, but to make it clear when the reason something had happened was because I had formed a conclusion and other people had listened. There's a big difference between "the IP's were being used illegally, leading to their edits being rolled back" and "Kww came to the conclusion that the IPs were being used illegally and called for them to be rolled back". The first states my conclusion as fact, the second states the actual fact: that me coming to a conclusion led to activity.—Kww(talk) 04:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see no point in arguing the past... it'll just make colloboration tougher at this point. So let's try another method, I'd like a temporary lifting of the edit filter and to see what transpires. @Kww: would you be willing to attempt this? And Hobit, not to carry this on your page without your involvement, but surely there would be no objection to a smaller gentleman's agreement to move forward here. The last thing I want to do is make a huge scene that'll get negative attention poised to capitalize on the effort and for there to be a "winning or losing" side. There is no winning or losing in this matter - framing it as such is invalid - but I much rather have a skilled editor like Kww who can see and monitor this also be willing to entertain such a trial and see what happens. I'd say let the filter remain to track the additions and respond as necessary. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, because I firmly believe that the owner of archive.is an untrustworthy individual and that every link to archive.is presents an unnecessary risk to users and editors.—Kww(talk) 05:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@

this discussion, which left me with a positive impression of Denis, quite informative. I see no reason to suspect nefarious motives, however I lack the technical knowledge and admin/checkuser privileges which are perhaps needed for a complete and fair analysis. Regarding "I had a hard time making sense of that discussion. Did you see anything there which you interpreted as either an explicit confirmation or denial of being responsible for the bot edits?—Kww(talk) 06:05, 5 October 2013 (UTC)" I think I understood the discussion, and the point is that who is responsible for the "bot edits" is irrelevant. If Denis is responsible and admits it, then Wikipedia blacklists the site because of his bad-faith edits. If he says that he is not responsible, either Wikipedia calls him a liar and blacklists the site because he is untrustworthy, or believes him and still blocks the site because he can't control the "bots" making bad-faith additions of links to his site. By the same logic we should ban all free archive sites because, by definition, none of them can ever guarantee themselves beyond any reasonable doubt to be trustworthy. I think I basically agree with Denis' comment "I think, if the Wikipedia government are so concerned even about illegality of proxy lists, they should remove all the free archives, buy pagefreezer.com's subscription and use it instead." Surely the WMF has the money to do this; I'm puzzled why a "pagefreeze" of any linked citation isn't made simultaneously and automatically with the saving of the citation-link itself. Any link can potentially be maliciously changed the minute after an editor saves it, in a manner that could reflect negatively on that editor. An emergency "pagefreeze" restoration might be needed to restore that editor's reputation. "Pagefreeze" copies would initially only be viewable by administrators, which would protect Wikipedia from BLP issues, etc. and only be restored by edit-request and admin review after the actual content link went dead or was (possibly maliciously) changed, if such restoration did not violate anyone's "right to be forgotten". Wbm1058 (talk) 19:26, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

@ChrisGualtieri: Are you still planning on starting a new RfC? If so, then please don't delay, as that would be the only good reason, in my view, to delay implementation of Kww's bot. Wbm1058 (talk) 19:26, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for comment on Bioregulatory medicine and I respect your view though disagree, but I would like to ask you honest question: Did you actually read article? And since it was deleted where did you access disputed text? thank youBogorodica (talk) 12:40, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's been restored so people can read it during the DRV. Look at the article and it's history. And I won't claim I read every word, but yes, I read it (looked at a few versions in fact). Hobit (talk) 13:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is fine I appreciate honest reply, regardless for outcome. Thanks for comment and particularly for reading article. By the way, may I ask for opinion, as I am really a new on Wiki and do not know how it works; do you think it is worth to keep working on the topic in background and gather scientific momentum (which is coming daily in on the topic) and resubmit when it reaches reasonable notability, or do you feel it would not be good idea and not worth effort?

Sorry to bother you, as I would not want to waste your time guys since you are doing great work..am big fun of the whole Wiki concept, so would not wish to jeopardise it Bogorodica (talk) 22:14, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think something in a more main-stream source would make this an open-and-shut case. A mainstream medical article (even negative) or significant coverage in the popular press. Hobit (talk) 03:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Understand the point, so will look for these notations and some I have already have compiled, but am grateful for your comments. many tyhanks Bogorodica (talk) 12:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Articles and reasons for being in the Wikipedia:

• Dominion 2009 Game Of The Year Germany, acts as an example to emulate
• Irene D. Long first female Chief Medical Officer at the Kennedy Space Center, one of the few female high-ranking individual in NASA
• Ong Kean Swan multilevel marketing "king" of Malaysia
• Blas de Lezo beat the British at their own game
• Sonneratia plant genus (plants and animals at the genus level and above are what encyclopedias traditionally cover, they form the web of life and through taxonomy provide context for each other)
• WP:5P
  , places are geographically related and each article demonstrates that
• Mu'izz al-Din Muhammad
  sultan of the Ghurid Empire, like all historical figures we have the web of history that links them
• Augustin Gattinger no article yet, widely cited German-American botanist, first cataloged Tennessee flora
• LiteSpeed Technologies Inc. is kind of weak, as you may see from my comments on the talkpage, but they do have the 4th most popular web server
• Guiana Shield one of the three cratons of the South American Plate, which helps understand Earth's development
• Mohorovičić discontinuity key concept in understanding the mantle-crust relation

Does that give you somewhat of an idea as to reasons for having an article in the Wikipedia? Wikipedia is not a directory or random data. To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context. If an article has no reason there is no context. --Bejnar (talk) 02:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • What is the bar you'd have? Context? We can do that as soon as we find someone who can read the sources. I understand your point--you want each article to *matter* and you want to be able to identify how it matters (or at least that's what I think you are saying). That's a very high bar--especially for an article whose sources are in languages (I assume) you can't read. Further, in my opinion, that's the wrong bar. I'd argue we'd delete nearly every football player and actor/actress here if we were to use that bar. Not to mention 95% of all singles. But "interesting" to a fair subset of our readers is also important--and thus we have those (rather popular) articles. But I'll ask again--how does deleting this help the encyclopedia? Our guidelines say to keep it.
    WP:BLP problems might be significant enough to merit deletion. But I just don't see the issue here. Hobit (talk) 04:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]

You say Our guidelines say to keep it. But I say that is not so. It may meet the threshold for being kept

WP:IAR is the exact reason not to keep. I can stumble through Dutch and German, and the three real reviews (as opposed to rules reviews, reprint blurbs or blogs) that I read did not really connect this game to the board game universe. One said it demonstrated no new game ideas, but did not indicate what ideas it did demonstrate. --Bejnar (talk) 23:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

OK, probably this isn't going to go anywhere--you see no value here and I see value and I don't see that changing. I also think we should cover things that meet

WP:N unless there is a good reason not to. I suspect if you hit random 10 times, some 3+ articles would be below the bar you've set. But ignoring all that, why does deletion help here? I just don't see the case. Hobit (talk) 03:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

You seem to have some skill at coming up with sources. Do you have anything you could add to improve Cerebro? BOZ (talk) 17:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Nothing great, but [10], [11] [12] (really brief), [13], [14] (pretty good). Sorry, that's all I could hunt down... Hobit (talk) 18:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the productive discussion on PC2, and best of luck for the next round. - Dank (push to talk) 22:19, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry folks, real life has been busy (fun, but busy). I'll be back here on Monday. Hobit (talk) 18:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion at

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration and have not been listed as a party. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda/Evidence. Please add your evidence by 3 December 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC). Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery[reply]

Hey, Hobit. I have found that keeping the "Article Alerts" pages of my favorite wikiprojects watchlisted is very helpful regarding PROD, speedy, and AFD debates, so I keep an eye on the AA pages for RPGs, D&D, and board and table games.  :) Would also be good on the rare occasion when one of these gets put up for GAN or FAC, too. ;) BOZ (talk) 16:05, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. And I don't foresee me doing a lot of article work until May. Maybe over the December break. Hummm... Any suggestions on something in that area that has good enough sources to get to Good status? Hobit (talk) 16:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have a bunch of potential contenders listed on my user page. :) Although not all are anywhere near yet ready to take the next step, a few are. BOZ (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After reading your remarks at the DRV I looked at your user page (I'm rather ashamed that I was wondering where you lived!) and found your thoughts about sandcastles. I then recalled an occasion several years ago when we were visiting a medieval castle. In the grounds was an outdoor chess game and my two young sons (8 and 6?) starting playing – not too seriously but they did know the moves you can make. Then another family arrived and their son of about the same age starting arbitrarily shifting the pieces around and ended up kicking the pieces away. His parents did not try to stop him but seemed to think he was adding to the fun of the game. My boys just watched and didn't appear to be upset. Looking back on it I think I should have told their boy to behave himself. Best wishes! Thincat (talk) 11:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, both in analogy and reality, it can be hard to figure out where to draw the line. Depending on your definition of several, my kids might be about the same age as yours... Fun times. Hobit (talk) 13:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have to ask whether you and the other contributors to this discussion have examined the edits of the article creator (not "Gabepage"). Justin Waters is a political campaigner for Gabriel Rothblatt and has already created three different user pages to ensure his interests get full coverage. Please can I request that you have another look before I refer this contributor for a sockpuppet investigation? Deb (talk) 12:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There may be (and likely is) a COI issue here. And I'd encourage the sockpuppet investigation. But the article as written seemed fine. Do the paid editing changes from the WMF allow us to delete based on COI/paid editing? I'd not mind that, but I didn't think we'd reached that point. Hobit (talk) 12:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, but if the article had been created in article space, I wouldn't have deleted it. It's precisely because he created a user specifically to promote a political candidate that I agreed it was promotional. Deb (talk) 12:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand where you are coming from, but don't agree. If there is a sock problem, it should be dealt via SPI rather than stretching our speedy rules. If there is a COI issue,

WP:COIN is probably the way to deal with it. An article that isn't on it's face promotional shouldn't really be speedied as promotional even if you (rightly) believe that was the purpose of the author. Hobit (talk) 14:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Also, per G11: " An article about a company or a product which describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion." I don't think the purpose of the author matters here if the article itself is neutral. I'd argue that it was. Hobit (talk) 14:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Would you like to comment on the solution he's now proposed? Deb (talk) 16:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Deb (talk) 10:10, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object to your change at all, but I can fill you in on a bit of background. The sentence "An article about a company or a product which describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion." was added in 2006, shortly after the criterion was first agreed, in response to a large number of speedy deletions of articles about notable British and Australian (chocolate) biscuits by a single admin. They were sent to DRV and from there to AfD where almost all were speedily kept. The sentence was thus added to clarify the intent of the criterion - i.e. it applies only to promotional articles, not to articles about commercial companies or products that are not promotional. If you want to know more, search for "biscuit" in the archives of Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. I was involved at the time (I closed the DRV), but by complete coincidence I happened across a couple of those discussions while looking for something else last night! Thryduulf (talk) 12:53, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, thanks for the background. The joy of being built brick-by-brick... Hobit (talk) 13:31, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You participated in the Overturn of the first closing of the Media Viewer RfC. You are invited to comment on the Close Review Request of the second closing of the same RfC: wp:Administrators'_noticeboard#Close_Review_Request_after_overturn_and_reclose. Alsee (talk) 14:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Thanks BOZ. Hope you are having a wonderful Christmas. I'm actually fairly nearby (assuming you haven't moved) visiting relatives in Chicagoland! Hobit (talk) 22:53, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello Hobit, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove 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. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015. Happy editing, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} to all registered users whom have commented on his talk page. To prevent receiving future messages, please follow the opt-out instructions on User:Technical 13/Holiday list

Happy New Year!

Hobit,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

Hi Hobit. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 January 6#Ryan Martin (boxer), you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Martin (boxer) (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 03:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:BOZ#Saving the Lost Children is just a taste. :) BOZ (talk) 20:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep up the good work! Hobit (talk) 23:24, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, what else would I do?  ;) BOZ (talk) 00:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask for your help in reviewing and revising the article about Computer Economics? I am a COI editor and should not edit the page directly, but I have left some suggestions on the article's talk page. Fscavo (talk) 23:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I noticed that you stated in this section (link) that the discussion about my topic ban could really stand to be closed, but nobody closed that discussion. Do you perhaps have some advice what to do now? Do you think that this discussion might be relevant for the appropriate closure of my ban appeal discussion?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Reformation (band) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Reformation (band) (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 20:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RfC:_Guidance_on_commas_before_Jr._and_Sr. Dohn joe (talk) 02:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this message because you have commented about this matter on the

You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the

This message is sent at 12:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC) by Arbitration Clerk User:Penwhale via MassMessage on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. You are receiving this message because your name appears on this list and have not elected to opt-out of being notified of development in the arbitration case.

On 5 July, 2015, the following motion was passed and enacted:

You are welcome to comment in this deletion discussion. You are being contacted because you participated in the first AFD in 2008. --Iamozy (talk) 17:17, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to comment in this deletion discussion. You are being contacted because you participated in the first AFD in 2008. --Iamozy (talk) 17:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You participated in either the CFD discussion to delete the above category and its subcategories or the DRV discussion regarding those categories (or both). The result of the DRV was to relist the categories for discussion. This is a notification that they have now been relisted for discussion here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I planned on

I invite you to FFD discussion. --George Ho (talk) 21:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

Hobit, you seem like someone who is open to having a serious discussion, so I wanted to follow up with you away from the present DRV that is generating more heat than light. In your last comment, you wrote "You do make a good point about our protection policies. But I think my alternative solution fixes everything. Your thoughts on that?" I don't know to what "my alternative" is a reference, and I could not find an obvious antecedent in this discussion thread. What did you mean by your "alternative"? I would be happy to share my thoughts, but I am at a loss to do so. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the kind words. The alternative I was suggesting was simply taking the old text from the deleted article and listing everyone who had contributed to that old article in the edit summary. I _think_ that meets CS BY-SA license, but I'd want a second opinion. Hobit (talk) 20:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It does. Attribution is all about documenting the Commons license for free use granted by every Wikipedia contributor, and there are a variety of ways to comply with the policy and the more expansive guideline thereunder. Sadly, it is one of the most regarded and least understood Wikipedia policies, and even experienced editors who are trying to comply with it (or enforce it) in good faith routinely screw it up. It's really not that hard, really, and most of the best compliance advice is found at WP:Copying within Wikipedia, and there's a couple of excellent talk page attribution templates that document article-to-article copy-pastes better than anything else of seen. IMO, however, this DRV is not really about the "selective merge" or copy-paste attribution; it's about promoting a preserve-the-article-history agenda, whenever and however possible, even when there's no particularly good reason for preserving the article history. But that, as they say, is another story. Hope things were pleasant today in the Shire. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that's what it's largely about. But as I largely feel that keeping the text visible to others working on this (if not in a real article) is a good thing, I've no real problem with it. That said, feel free to jump in and support my proposal to do attribution this way in the discussion. I think it addresses the actual policy issues without requiring we keep the article history around. Hobit (talk) 18:27, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. If you don't like Christmas or just don't celebrate it in any of its forms, then please accept a generic "Happy Holidays". If you celebrate no holidays at this time of year, then hopefully you will be satisfied with an even more generic "Season's Greetings".  :) BOZ (talk) 18:55, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks BOZ. Hope you are enjoying your cold weather (he says from AZ)... Hobit (talk) 19:53, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Hobit,

Thanks for your support on the

• No, no one to contact. You've hit a bit of stupidity. Your best bet is to wait a while (6 months or more) until you get new sources and just move the thing to mainspace and see what happens. If you avoid a speedy deletion as a recreation (which good new sources should do), you'll win in the AfD. You won't get consensus in a DRV in part because people have made up their minds and in part because of going "too many times to the well". Feel free to bring the new sources to me here when you are ready and I'll look them over. I do wish you'd answered my question at DRV with just 3 sources. I think you'd have had a shot at that point if you'd picked the right ones. There were 3 good ones in there, but also a lot of crappy ones in non-RSes or just not useful for whatever reason. Like I said, wait 6+ months and bring the new sources to me, I'll try to identify the ones that will make for the best
  WP:N argument (or tell you that they just aren't there and to wait longer. As a warning, my job is randomly busy as heck and I just drop out from Wikipedia for weeks at a time. Hobit (talk) 21:06, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

No problem Hobit. Thank You! Sorry I should have shown you 3 strong sources. I apologize. I will keep you updated with the progress on the draft. --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 23:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your last comment to me on the

• Thanks. I think we are at a good point where we can agree to disagree with no harm done. Good luck! Hobit (talk) 19:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hobit,

Several new sources have arose for

I would like us to keep in touch and updated. If these sources are good below and with more to come hopefully after the broadcast, how do we go ahead with trying to get this onto the mainspace?

They are here;

• [15] (Taken from TVNZ)
• [16] (Also from TVNZ)

I also found this one from the Mirror, though I know we can't use that as its not a website that is considered a reliable source [17]

Thanks! --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 22:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, let's wait until Sunday's broadcast. And I think for something like this the Mirror is a fine source, though I know others may disagree Hobit (talk) 17:16, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

- Updated. I have had a small search again and I have also found the new sources. From Japan actually; [20] and [21] Thanks --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 21:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC) - Updated. More sources found from Newstalk ZB NZ - See [22] and [23]. I think that you should listen to it as it goes into alot of detail. Can we get this article straight to the Mainspace and see if it gets another deletion nomination. That is the best way going forward with this. Thank You! --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 00:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • Sorry for being slow on responding. Yes, that's exactly what I would do. Try to move it as fully-formed as possible into mainspace with the new sources and see how it goes. It should be immune to a
    WP:CSD#G4 with the new (and solid) sources, and any AfD, IMO, doesn't have a leg to stand on. Let me know when you've done so and let me know if it does go to AfD. Good luck! Hobit (talk) 03:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Hey, Hobit, sorry to revive an old thread, but I've pinged you at Cunard's talk page about this draft (at User_talk:Cunard#Alex_Gilbert), and I'm curious about your opinion of the draft as it stands now. I don't see any particular issues with the draft, but I've only been cursorily involved with this whole thing, and I'd appreciate your view, if you have the time. If not, no worries, of course; I'll probably just move it to mainspace in a day or two if I don't hear any objections. Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For noticing that there was something quite askew in our WP:PRESERVE policy, and humbly pointing it out. Most excellent! -- Kendrick7talk 07:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply ]

Thank you for your understanding and fixing it! Hobit (talk) 03:25, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	Peacemaker67 RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating and supporting at my RfA. It was very much appreciated, and I am humbled that the community saw fit to trust me with the tools. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. –Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:20, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Hobit, as you were one of the open disucssion participants, I come to you for some feedback as I'm kind of confused what happend in the Red Eclipse deletion process. First, it seems it was ignored that no consensus was reached by the deleting admin

All that said, has there been any additional coverage of Red Eclipse since June? Any reviews by reliable sources (not blogs or user reviews)? You're pretty much going to have to wait for things like that to exist before Wikipedia's guidelines allow for an article. Hobit (talk) 14:32, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Shaddim: -- sorry just realized how old your message was. I'm sorry I'd missed it before. I missed the notice somehow and rely on that to check my webpage. Hobit (talk) 14:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response and heads up. Yes, that the people "felt" only that the sources didn't met inclusion requirements was one of my concerns, they didn't properly checked them (verfiable as one author totally misargued, exposing his missing knowledge). They also ignored the, IMHO notable, paper and the reception via illumiroom. Also, I'm quite confused about the implementation and interpretation of "consensus" in this AfD and the review (where this was totally ignored) which seems to be not what is written in the policies, it is just majority vote. I can understand that (as consensus in its pure form would allow blocking by minorities), but than our policies should not explicitly mention "consensus not vote". About the admin, I find her/his behaviour quite unprofessional and unsuitable an admin but not bad enough for a formal complaint or vandalism report. As she/he blocks communication I can't tell that her/him ... recommendations how to give some appropriate feedback here? cheers and thanks Shaddim (talk) 09:00, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, consensus on Wikipedia isn't a true consensus thing. Rather it's more "there is general agreement" and "that general agreement is compatible with our guidelines/rules". In this case I'd say the closing admin correctly read the consensus (though I disagree with that consensus)--if I'd have been forced to close that discussion I'd have closed it the same way. And that's why the admin got frustrated with you (I think) because you couldn't see what was "obvious" to them. _that_ said, an admin's job is to deal with comments like yours. You may have misunderstood how Wikipedia discussions work, but you weren't out of line and the admin needs to have a LOT thicker skin than that. God knows _I_ have to have thicker skin to not start ranting at other people all the time and I'm not an admin. If you like, I'll drop said admin a note and point to this discussion. Not to say "you are a bad person" but rather "that could have been handled better". I'm hopeful you just caught them on a bad day (which happens to us all). Hobit (talk) 11:09, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Gaming the system?. Thank you. Guy Macon (talk) 04:47, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining to

• No worries. DRV is a weird place with weird traditions and ways of doing things to outsiders. Plus everyone tends to get upset when we try to delete something that's important to them--it's like saying to them that the things you value are actually worthless. So it's worth taking the time to explain to them it isn't personal. Ideally that will help with editor retention (of course, it would help more if we actually covered more things rather than deleting so much, but hey, that's why I'm an inclusionist). Hobit (talk) 07:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering if you would be willing to write a short Stub for

• Likely not for a week or two, but yes, I could probably do that. Can you do me the favor of listing all the reliable 3rd-party sources you've found on this page? That will help me move along. As a warning, it will probably be pretty stubby. Hobit (talk) 16:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Thank you. It is better then nothing in my opinion. Which the article is unfortunately now. Here are some of reliable 3rd party sources about the company:

• • http://www.bizjournals.com/southflorida/news/2016/06/21/software-company-shatters-performance-metric.html
  • http://www.computerweekly.com/news/4500253781/Bradford-Grammar-School-graduates-to-DataCore-for-software-defined-storage
  • http://www.computerweekly.com/news/4500252329/DataCore-teams-up-to-with-Curvature-offer-recycled-storage-hardware
  • http://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/?/sites/johnwebster/2015/12/09/the-rebirth-of-parallel-io/&toURL=http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnwebster/2015/12/09/the-rebirth-of-parallel-io/&refURL=https://www.google.com/&referrer=https://www.google.com/
  • http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnwebster/2016/07/20/the-quest-for-real-time-computing/#786b3c75f9be
  • http://www.pcworld.com/article/2899392/huawei-multiplies-partnerships-with-software-and-service-providers.html
  • http://www.edtechmagazine.com/higher/article/2014/08/colleges-gain-flexibility-storage-virtualization
  • http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/datacore-lands-30-million-from-vcs/
  • https://www.cnet.com/news/datacore-raises-more-than-30-million/
  • https://www.cnet.com/news/hitachi-funds-storage-software-company/
  • https://www.cnet.com/news/three-win-awards/
  • http://www.channelpro.co.uk/advice/9048/software-defined-storage-a-quick-guide
  • http://cloudtimes.org/2014/07/11/new-study-reveals-enterprises-are-not-ready-for-virtualized-software-licensing-management/
  • http://www.channelinsider.com/news-and-trends/ingram-to-acquire-odin-service-automation-platform.html
  • http://www.storageperformance.org/benchmark_results_files/SPC-1/DataCore/A00164_DataCore_SANsymphony-V_10-0/a00164_DataCore_SANsymphony-V_10.0_SPC-1_executive-summary.pdf
  • http://thefibrechannel.com/featured-articles/datacore-sets-spc-1-record-using-fibre-channel-storage/
  • http://www.storageperformance.org/results/benchmark_results_spc1_active/

Let me know if these work or if you need more. Thanks again! TaraLynn (talk) 18:12, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering if you have gotten a chance to look at this yet?User:Hobit Also there is another Forbes Article that has recently been released: https://forbestechcouncil.com/blog/2016/10/26/forbes-technology-council-member-company-datacore-software-partners-with-supermicro-on-enterprise-class-hyper-converged-network-solutions/ Thank you again for your help TaraLynn (talk) 18:07, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:55, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on International Symposium on Computer Architecture requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Was this reverted due to block evasion, or something else? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oyi. It's something else. Hobit (talk) 16:22, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]