User talk:ATren

archive historical revision - rather than explicitly creating an archive page (which needlessly copies data), this neatly links to the last revision before removing archived sections. It also serves as a handy marker to the exact point where archival occurred in the history.

Question which you inspired

• Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard#Are_Admins_treated_differently_than_other_wikipedians.3F

Thanks Travb (talk) 04:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey ATren, sorry to admit that your talkpage is always on my watchlist, but consider it a good thing, I added you since some incident involving that renegade rouge admin that we all know about, to see if you ever need help. Anyways hope you don't mind if I comment here -- haven't spoken to you for a while. With regard to admins getting treated differently, do I need to mention the countless times JzG has been incredibly incivil to both you and me and other wikipedians, including swearing and other such name-calling -- without even so much as a warning placed against him? Then we have the fact that JzG FOR SEVERAL WEEKS kept a link on his talkpage flaming both you and I, which is against wikipolicy - you cannot have attack pages offwiki (or for that matter on wiki), especially from an admin - and his used all kinds of colourful language about you and me -- directly linked from his userpage, the cheek. Then he was recently involved in removing someone else's off-wiki attack pages (I think you were in on this issue) -- and during the whole time he had this link on his userpage -- the hypocracy. This came directly after he had my evidence page about him removed from my userspace (and I use the word evidence page very strictly -- there was absolutely no attack it was very civil and respectful) and just recently an admin asked him to delete a so-called 'evidence page' in his userspace that he had been harbouring for over a year. I didn't get to see its content, but he admitted the issue was long over. But still? The guy is perhaps wikipedia's ultimate admin hypocrit. Swear, be incivil, punish people for off-wiki attack pages all-the-while keeping his own, removing other peoples harmless and constructive evidence pages, all the while keeping his own.

Do admins get treated differently? That one does. Rfwoolf (talk) 09:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

…for the note. Don't worry, I didn't take anything personally, it was clear there was a lot of history there. I know defending your record can be an exhausting thing, and I respect your need to move on. Appreciate the note, though. -Pete (talk) 04:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Dethzone

Give him a break, please. Dethzone obviously doesn't fully understand the rule that people are allowed to remove messages, and the general unspoken rule to not repeatedly repost the message. He may have thought that JzG hadn't read it and posted it again, and all Steel did was "sorry not today" without explaining why. You've given him his first warning. I think it's premature to start discussing blocking.

TOAT and JzG have told him to start contributing, and I think he's making a good-faith effort by creating an article in his sandbox and asking JzG to look over it – which is far more than I can say about most newbie users who just charge straight ahead and dump their stuff into Special:Newpages and get frustrated and angry when administrators go A7 on it. We may have a good contributor on our hands here. He just needs a mentor and some guidence, and this "omg block" might scare him away. With Rudget gone, we need as much as much manpower as possible... hbdragon88 (talk) 06:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Read This Please

iHave Some Problems It Has To Do The Words You And That Other Admin Said About Me(In A Yelling Voice)iAm Going To Be A Book Writer/Director/Film Writer/Producer Theses Are My Dreams And iAm Just Testing It iAm Going To Finish It Soon There Will Be More(On Chapter Three)OK So Let Me Finish Also iDon't Know Whats Wrong With JzG But iAm Not Going Guess But Also The Story Is about A Band Called Dark Force Death metal/Brutal death metal/Metalcore/Extreme metal Band Its Still Not Done Yet So Just To Let You Know iAm Gods Soldier And Follower So A Word To The Wise Don't Make H.I.M. Take His Wrath On You He Will Do Alot To You Painfull Things Two More Things A Guy Questioned His Ability It Was On That Wiki Sandbox Also Don't Question His Abilitys And Sorry About Reposting Messages On JzGs Talk Page iAm Just Like A Robot From Aqua Teen Hunger Force Episode There Where Robots That Moved In Next Door To Carls Place They Were Annoying Very Annoying He Was On The Phone But The Robots Were Saying Carl Hang Up The Phone Come On Carl Hang Up The Phone iThink iMade My Point Now. -- NATHAN EXPLOSION (talk) 20:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply to your early Dec. note to me -

Hi ATren, I know what you mean about the potential for flame wars, but I think that Wiki also provides an opportunity for working through conflicts, for bringing consensus into what might otherwise be a contentious situation. You might enjoy looking at some of the examples at Wiki success stories.

-- Martha (talk) 23:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't Feed the Divas

I moved your essay article to Wikipedia:Don't Feed the Divas, since such essays to not belong in the mainspace, but are fine and dandy with the Wikipedia prefix. This is simply WP policy, and is not a judgment of the article's content in any way. The original title, of course, now redirects to the new title. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You can do it in user space, but not in main space as you did. Easy fix, though. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It's as OK as any similar essay in WP space. Actually, I think it's pretty much spot-on. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Permanent link archive method

Yuck. But, okay. TJRC (talk) 18:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/JzG2

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/JzG2 - I know you've buried the hatchet, but at long last someone's actually taken him to task. But watch closely as nothing is done :) Rfwoolf (talk) 16:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Clesh

Hi, if you can spare any time I would appreciate your input over on Clesh. It's a new article for a sister of FORscene. It is being proposed for deletion - wrongly I believe. Your ID is on the original discussion trail for FORscene and think the Clesh discussion would benefit from any input you can offer. Regards, mk (talk) 13:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC).

I'll take a look, but I was only slightly involved in the FORscene stuff and I'm not well-versed in these areas, so I may not have much to contribute. ATren (talk) 15:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

UniModal

Hi, I think you might be interested to know that UniModal was deleted... and I set up a deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_May_5#UniModal. Feel free to comment or not. Fresheneesz (talk) 06:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Not aimed at you

The comment was not aimed at you. Look at SkyTran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), see the edit history, look at the history of the editor who wrote it. You could have asked, but I understand why you might jump to the wrong conclusion here. No big deal unless other people choose to make it one, I'd say. Guy (Help!) 13:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks/ your userpage

"I've gotten involved in a few protracted disputes - mainly because I have a difficult time walking away when I know there is a wrong being committed - but I've always tried my best to remain civil and respectful." I agree with this idea 100%- though my boyf always tries to get me to keep my head down to avoid stress:) Merkin's mum 01:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Advice etc

"Nothing good will come from continued interaction with DS. Just let it go and let others handle it."

Thanks for your advice.

"but you really should watch what you write, both here and on WR. I searched through your comments on WR (assuming they're yours - and you don't have to confirm or deny that) and I found nothing extraordinarily bad, but you still shouldn't do it."

As you say, I don't think my comments were that bad. I have merely expressed my opinion on certain actions/edits that have happened on wiki. David is the only person I've mocked for himself- which was mean of me- it was nasty and it won't happen again from me about anyone. Rise above it.

"Remember, there are human beings behind those screen names."

I am well aware of it and that's why I would never advocate outing people etc. But if I think people have acted wrongly towards others here, who are also real people, I will comment on it- maybe briefly and civilly here now too though, so as not to be two-faced about it.

"and don't worry about that essay - you've apologized sincerely, and that's more than enough"

The thing is, he has said he might carry out some sort of threat of outing or something against me if I don't. As I don't want that, and no-one here can stop him doing that off site, I am at the mercy of his demand for this, so what can I do? Merkin's mum 12:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

"Tag team sockpuppetry" What people usually mean by that is people have two accounts on wikipedia with which they then back themselves up by for instance, one agreeing with each other or one making similar edits so they can circumvent 3RR or something. I have never used a WW account on here, nor any other. Nor have I been on WR saying "that Merkinsmum, she is absolutely right" :) or something like that. I used a different name there for security reasons due to problems with my Merky account, which I've kept for sentimental value due to it being named after my first cat, who then passed away. I was actually thinking of putting my wiki account name on my profile there, and was moving towards being even more open about it (some admins here already knew it was me). You can see I was moving towards it by some of my edits there, referring to myself and even the other day linking to a user subpage of mine and saying it was mine (this seemed to help the person with their outing- if I'd expected that from either side, it wouldn't have been from WP.) Merkin's mum 14:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I see your point now. But unfortunately I can't do anything about it and how it might appear :( , as I don't feel I can do any different in terms of the name, and thus out myself any more than has already happened, if that's possible.:) Merkin's mum 14:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

letting it go

Yeah, I'm letting it go. Avidor does the most frustrating stupid things tho. I just won't respond to him. Fresheneesz (talk) 01:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

sig

I've copied and pasted and this is the result. There's an unnecessary extra 2 brackets. You see it works fine on your page- it's just Neil's page it has issues with.:( Sticky Parkin]] 21:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it happens to others, it's incorrect nesting of the brackets. The fact that Neil's page happens to reveal the issue is irrelevant - it's your sig that is incorrect. I don't know why it won't work when you copy-paste, and I don't know how to examine it myself. But the problem is still your sig, and if it failed on Neil's it's a good bet it will fail on others as well. My talk page is very basic, so that's probably why it works here and at other plain talk pages. ATren (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I copied it:- look-as I already had above:) isn't everything inside a bracket? This is the code neil gave me- I copied it exactly- if you can see anything that's outside a bracket or something in my code then please tell. I've asked at a help desk thingy. Sticky Parkin 22:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I asked the hep desk boys and I think it's fixed now.:) Think something was wrong with my clipboard for copying, I turned off and on again.:) Sticky Parkin 22:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it was the turning off and on that helped. Now I won't tinker with it for ages lol, html, the horror!:) Sticky Parkin 22:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk page of FAIR

Thanks for contributing to the discussion on the description of FAIR and similar organizations. I think that you added valuable perspective and insight. Trilemma (talk) 13:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I've tried to address these issues before, but I got slammed for being partisan and pushing my supposed POV, so it just wasn't worth pursuing for me. I am apolitical and generally hate ideological warfare, so this was certainly not something I wanted to be involved in. But I still had FAIR watched so I thought I'd chime in on your debate. I probably won't be involved much further. Perhaps you and Hal and Gamaliel can hammer something productive out of this. ATren (talk) 14:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Skytran

Yeah, Doorjam seems to be more objective than he seemed originally. The edits aren't that much of a big deal anyway. Fresheneesz (talk) 21:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I thank you for your generous support

I sincerely appreciate your efforts here today. Now that the timer has expired on my "RFC", I would like to know your thoughts regarding my comments here [1], [2], and [3]. --GoRight (talk) 20:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to be brutally honest with you here, GR: if you think you're going to be able to take on Raul and his friends and survive, you are kidding yourself. I think you need a crash course in Wikipragmatism:

1. All editors are not created equal - Raul can break the rules all he wants, but you can't. That's just the reality of Wikipedia, and if you want to stick around here you'd better get used to it. Wikipedia treats its established editors much differently than newbies.
2. All POVs are not created equal - there are a few topics here that are basically owned by one side of the debate. Global warming is one; intelligent design is another. You will find your stay here short and unpleasant if you oppose the majority views on those kinds of topics. (Ironically, I happen to agree with the majority on those debates, but I am repulsed by the tactics of the editors involved. Sadly, in the name of being pro-science, many of these editors act like religious fanatics...)
3. You will not get a fair shake in any formal dispute resolution process - Forget about the Wikipedia democratic ideal claiming that "anyone can edit". The plain fact is that Wikipedia is much more oligarchy than democracy. There is a ruling elite, and people who disagree too strongly with that elite are eventually banned. So, if you fight back too hard, you will lose matter how "right" you happen to be. Your best bet is to calmly and humbly defend yourself in the RFC and leave Raul alone. Elite editors are never sanctioned unless they do something so egregiously bad that it draws extensive media attention and/or litigation (e.g. User:Essjay). Certainly, your case doesn't come close to that level, so just drop it and move on.

Of course, you will not read a bit of this on any policy page; policies document the "rules", I am telling you the reality. If you choose to follow your current idealistic path and trust the system to do the right thing, you'll be gone in a month; if you choose a more pragmatic path and avoid confrontation with the elite, you might stay long enough to actually have a positive influence here. ATren (talk) 23:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

My response on my RFC

Note that I plan to revise my response on my RFC as follow:

• Trim out the irrelevant knee-jerk bits.
• Structure the General Points to be a point by point response to Raul's and WMC's charges with clear factual statements as much as possible.
• I do not anticipate making any changes that would affect your support there, but be advised of the changes so that you can reconsider your position, if needed, as it evolves.

--GoRight (talk) 00:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for letting me know. ATren (talk) 05:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

My RFC discussion

This expresses my thoughts exactly, [4]!  :) --GoRight (talk) 20:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know you're frustrated. Believe me, I've been there, trying to establish my innocence against a flood of powerful users (not on GW - a different conflict entirely). In the beginning, I did many of the same things you are doing to defend myself, thinking that truth would prevail, but I lost that idealism pretty quickly in the face of accusations of harassment and tendentiousness. You could say I've gained my pragmatic attitude the hard way. :-) I now have no illusions about what Wikipedia is, and I generally stick to stuff I don't care about. For me, GW falls into that category. ATren (talk) 20:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Singer

Thanks much for that. Daniel (talk) 04:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. ATren (talk) 14:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

WMC

Very elegantly said. --Bardcom (talk) 15:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Bardcom

Hi. I removed Bardcom's twaddle from my page, and alas your comment had to go to. Which was:

---

I have a problem with this. Whatever Bardcom did, WMC did assume bad faith, and that has caused further drama. For what purpose? WMC, why couldn't you make a simple statement of the problem without insulting him?

Here is what WMC wrote that Bardcom objects to (I've bolded the places where WMC doesn't AGF or otherwise uses aggressive language):

I don't believe him. As for the BI stuff: yes there are complications there, but no: his isn't a genuine good-faith attempt to improve wiki; its POV pushing be to try to remove a term he dislikes for political reasons. You can tell this, because while removing BI on the bizarre grounds of OR, he adds something equally uncited. But this giant pile of nonsense is now on the article talk page, so best to continue there, if you can bear it.

Now, why couldn't you have simply said:

There are political complications with the BI stuff, and Bardcom was replacing BI mentions with equally uncited material. I blocked him because he was edit warring and ignoring consensus. When his block expires, he is welcome to discuss the issue on the talk pages, where the debate continues.

This essentially says the same thing with no aggressiveness or insults. It focuses on Bardcom's actions, not his unprovable intent. It uses no inflammatory wording ("pile of nonsense"). It gives the reasoning for the block and the conditions under which Bardcom may edit unimpeded. It's makes all the same statements as the original, but has the added benefit of being drama free. So why the insults and attacks? What is the point?

(Note: I make these comments with absolutely no judgement on the merits of Bardcom's original block - this has to do with how it was handled. In particular, Bardcom should not in any way take this as an endorsement of anything he did) ATren (talk) 14:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

---

Somewhat patronising, but to answer your essential point: Bardcom is engaged in a one-man campaign to remove the words British Isles from wiki. He is editing in bad faith, and a glance at his edits will show you this. Pretending otherwise is pointless. As the talk on his talk page makes clear, Bardcom is not to be trusted: he keeps inexplicably missing text that he has actually responded to; he quotes the first sentence of the revert policy but somehow fails to read the second... all very odd, or rather, not odd at all William M. Connolley (talk) 20:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no interest in Bardcom's offenses. This is about your handling of it. I showed you how you could have easily avoided needless drama and still conveyed the point that Bardcom was worthy of a block. But it seems you always choose the inflammatory, high drama path, and it reflects poorly on you, on Wikipedia, and on the very beliefs you hold so strongly.

What you don't seem to understand is that your attacks play right into the hands of your opponents. People like Solomon can use your own attacking words to prove their point: they can say "See, they claim to be scientists, but they attack anyone who disagrees with them" and then present half a dozen direct quotes where you called someone an idiot or hack. You make it easy for them to attack you.

Do you like being publicly mocked on CBS news? Forget about who wrote it, or the fact that it's from a conservative website - that piece appeared on a major national news outlet and it was factually correct. You did add the embarassing stuff to Singer's BLP, and then edit warred to keep it prominent in the article, even calling it "embarassing" yourself. You did say "Peiser's crap". You are frequently incivil. In effect, you handed that column to Solomon with your behavior, and speaking as someone who agrees much more with your views than Solomon's, I think that stinks.

So, I guess what I'm saying is, I wish you could be more Russert and less O'Reilly, and I think a lot of other editors share my view. ATren (talk) 01:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The CBS piece is amusingly inaccurate. I don't claim to be a scientist. You've got most of your facts wrong. Ah well William M. Connolley (talk) 07:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

My mistake, I thought you were a scientist. The rest of it is dead on, but I guess we're in the Wikipedia no spin zone. I'd hoped for more from you. :-( ATren (talk) 07:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

A frosty one!

Anymore, it seems everyone is either a troll, an admin, or wants to be an admin... here's to those who enjoy being a Wikipedian just for the sake of being a Wikipedian... - Adolphus79 (talk) 04:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

My friend ATren, I offer you this frosty pint of homebrew, for fighting the good fight, and supporting the Wikipedian middle class... Prost! Adolphus79 (talk) 04:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)