User talk:Atsme/Archive 31

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Atsme. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

→

alligator gar

Perhaps it is you who should take an English class so you can tell the subject of a sentence then match the verb to it. I see you like stray capitals and other errors, too.75.111.203.5 (talk) 22:41, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Seriously, if you diagram the sentence, you will find that "evidence" is the subject, so requires a singular verb "suggests".75.111.203.5 (talk) 23:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I thought maybe you would understand the above, and not consider my reversions as edit warring.75.111.203.5 (talk) 02:01, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Nope - you were edit warring and changing the context of important information. Productive collaboration is always welcome, especially if an editor shows up to improve or expand a GA. You may have thought your grammar corrections were corrections, and that your other wikignoming attempts were productive, but they were not as I explained on the article TP. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:24, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your kind words at WP:AE. It's now closed with a partial lifting of my topic ban. --David Tornheim (talk) 13:40, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I believe in 2nd chances and remain optimistic that you will take advantage of your's in the most productive way. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Category:AQHA Hall of Fame (horses) has been nominated for discussion

Category:AQHA Hall of Fame (horses), which you created, has been nominated for conversion into a list along with 4 other categories. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 15:22, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

The inmates are running the asylum!

See this for the truth or merely sour grapes venting--MONGO (talk) 14:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

😂 - I think we have a new tool bar in edit mode. My emoji console is gone? Yikes! There's an autoformat feature with a broom that I've not seen before - not sure how it works. ???? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:55, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't use the emojis...I might if they had some more congruent with the mind of a hairy woodland beast. Like one of me ripping the arms off someone.--MONGO (talk) 13:52, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

He got a chance to do it "the right way". Was even able to use MediaWiki software and all Wikipedia content as a starting point to work from. It got a fair bit of press at launch time: Citizendium. Seems like it's had maybe 300 edits in the last month. We've had that many edits in the last 2 minutes. See, it turns out that all the distinguished, authoritative people are busy with their own work, while if you want people to donate work for free, you need to go to dedicated (and arguably somewhat insane) amateurs. --GRuban (talk) 15:20, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Passion, hobbies, causes, passionate hobbies, passionate causes...the basis for numerous multi-million dollar entities, some established under the guise of non-profit wherein wealthy executives reap the financial benefits of free labor, or to be PC, "volunteers". People will pay to work or contribute however they can to be part of whatever feeds their passion. On WP, when it stops being fun, we simply point them to WP:DGAF, and they either adapt or move on. In the interim, a new wave of passionate editors are being trained. 😂 ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:27, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

[1] --GRuban (talk) 21:28, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

- good'un GR...annnd as things are now, we have true income equality. Why spoil it? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:54, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits about IQ researchers

Atsme, could you please take a look at Grayfell's recent edits to the Michael A. Woodley of Menie, Yr. and IQ and Global Inequality articles, particularly [2] and [3]?

The WorldCat page for the book in the first edit is here: [4] Even if WorldCat is wrong about who the publisher is, it looks like original synthesis to mention these things unless a source has made these criticisms about these particular books. On the talk page of the Linda Gottfredson article, Grayfell repeatedly argued that sources must be specifically about the article's subject in order to be included, and I don't see why a different standard should be applied to these other articles than to that one. 2600:1004:B146:8795:CC3:2982:1826:61BB (talk) 21:30, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure where is the right place to say this, but I suppose I'll say it here seeing as I've already opened this section.

I have been in communication with a few of the living people who are subjects of the articles Grayfell is editing, as well as some of their colleagues, and at least one person has been harmed in real life earlier this year as a consequence of Grayfell's actions. At this point, the harm he is causing to people's careers is known to several researchers studying human intelligence, and that's the reason so many I.P.s have been editing these articles over the past few months. Most of us don't have have any direct relation to the article subjects (I don't), but we also can't stand idly by and watch this happen to our colleagues, and among those of us who have Wikipedia entries, there also is the fear that he may eventually do the same thing to us.

Based on the earlier discussions on the Linda Gottfredson article, my impression is that Wikipedia policy does not actually support the changes Grayfell is making, but he is so determined and so prolific that the majority of his changes are impossible to prevent. This failure to uphold policy represents a serious problem for Wikipedia. Since "Grayfell" is just a pseudonym (and legal threats also are prohibited on Wikipedia), the academics affected by his actions have no legal recourse, and must rely on Wikipedia's internal policies to protect them. I know that the subject of one of these articles made a complaint to the Wikimedia Foundation's legal team a few months ago, but he never received a reply, so the only way to prevent possible harm to ourselves seems to be by asking on talk pages like this one for policy to be upheld.

@DGG: @Randykitty: both of you participated in the earlier discussions on the Gottfredson article, and your input there helped. Is there anything more that could be done to address this overall situation? I am looking for a long-term solution, not just something that will address the problem on one article while he makes similar changes to several others. 2600:1004:B15E:1D82:80C6:D940:5A32:BE4A (talk) 06:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

April 2019

Regarding this comment... aside from the failure to assume good faith, which I suspect I don't need to explain to you, allow me to break down the first few sentences:

If it's true that the wall of text above is not stonewalling/filibustering, then (a) stop the PAs against me, (b) restore the Barr material that was wrongfully reverted or provide a logical explanation why it shouldn't be restored, (c) update this article to reflect what the Mueller Report revealed, (d) stop referring to the DOJ's spying/surveillance/intelligence as a "conspiracy theory", and (e) change the lead to reflect a NPOV.

I think this can be fairly summarized as: If it's true that ((you're not being disruptive)), then ((you must edit the article in such-and-such a way)). Did I get that wrong? If not, can you see how that inhibits consensus building? You're using accusations of bad faith as a leverage point to demand content changes. That's disruptive.

As for my views about WP:RS, I'm not the one with the problem.

If I'm not mistaken, no one accused you of having a problem. That's unnecessary personalization.

My views/interpretations are spot-on so put the gaslights away.

Paraphrase: I'm 100% right, so anyone who disagrees with me is acting in bad faith. Similar to the first sentence, you're using an accusation of bad faith (gaslighting) as leverage to get your way on content (your views/interpretations). Also, gaslighting is a very serious accusation. Was that really what you meant? R2 (bleep) 16:08, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

If you can't see what you're doing, there is nothing more I can say or do. If you were sincere about trying to collegially discuss/improve/update the article, we would be discussing revisions/reverts/updates/suggestions on the TP of that article. Instead, you have come here to further your gaslighting/stonewalling/PAs. I have nothing more to say to you. My TP is not the place to discuss article improvement. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:14, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok, let's try again. If you make disruptive comments like that again then I will remove the embedded personal attacks and/or report you. R2 (bleep) 17:22, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

R2 (bleep) 17:26, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

As someone who watches but does not edit the Spygate page, I do want to raise some concerns about your behavior there. (I haven't looked elsewhere). My specific concerns revolve around this thread, in particular your comment here. Aside from your combative tone, which, as R2 mentioned, boils down to a demand that other editors comply with your preferred content or else be labeled disruptive, there are the following specific issues:

You repeatedly dismiss the reliability of sources and label them as biased based on links to mediabiasfactcheck.com. You should know that this website is itself unreliable, by widespread consensus, and should not be used in the assessment of sources on Wikipedia. It is basically Some Guy's Personal Website, and its reliability has consistently and roundly rejected by consensus at WP:RS/N (here and here; see also its entry at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources). Please don't continue to invoke this clearly unreliable source in discussions of source validity.
You dismiss a news article from the Los Angeles Times as implicitly unreliable because of your perception of the newspaper's political orientation. As has been repeatedly explained, our policies state that "news reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact". I'm not sure why you are unwilling to accept this policy, but it is disruptive to dispute the reliability of sources in ways that directly contradict site policy.

Your previous topic ban from American politics was based, in part, upon your habit of "repeatedly discrediting reliable sources; claiming bias and propaganda in reliable sources". Your topic ban was lifted in part because of your explicit assurance that you would no longer engage in such behavior. I'm bringing this here, rather than going to WP:AE to request re-imposition of the topic ban, because I think you can still pull back and start respecting this site's sourcing guidelines—even where they contradict your personal political views. Undermining reliable sources is harmful and disruptive, and I'm not willing to see it continue without addressing it. Do you see the grounds for my concern, or does it seem unfounded to you? MastCell ^Talk 17:50, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks MastCell, I wasn't aware of Atsme's topic ban, nor of their (her?) successful appeal. It appears to me that Atsme's conduct here is exactly the type that led to her getting in hot water in the first place--not just the dismissal of reliable sources, but also the long-time persistent resistance to good advice. In addition to that, there were many comments about how the topic ban should be lifted because Atsme was so civil and friendly; yet she was most definitely not civil or friendly in this instance. I make this comment not not to shame or threaten, but to express shock that she would revert to behavior that's almost guaranteed to get her permanently topic banned, especially after she explained in her appeal how unpleasant the topic ban was while it was in place. R2 (bleep) 18:34, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

R2, why are you posting that boilerplate warning when its probably pretty obvious that Atsme is well aware of those DS? I have to say that you seem to be engaged in harassment at this point and I sure hope that ceases immediately. In case you are not aware, Harassment is defined by policy as: "Harassment is a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons. Usually (but not always), the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine, frighten, or discourage them from editing. Wikipedia must never be misused to harass anyone, whether or not the subject of the harassment is an editor here. Edits constituting harassment will be reverted, deleted, or suppressed, as appropriate, and editors who engage in harassment are subject to blocking. Harassment can include actions calculated to be noticed by the target and clearly suggestive of targeting them, where no direct communication takes place" In other words, both here on her talkpage and elsewhere, comment on content not contributors. User:MastCell...you want to find whatever reason you can to get this editor topic banned again as you seem to have fought vigorously a couple months back to not allow her topic ban to be lifted, and were in fact very dedicated to that cause. If you cannot see the difference between a nonneutral source and what is a RS then I don't know what to do with you. Alas, its rather saddening that you would say she is calling these sources unreliable when you have repeatedly argued against another RS, FoxNews as being "unreliable", [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. MastCell, it is disappointing to an extreme that you would be lecturing Atsme for a violation that you yourself have done. Finally, Atsme, I think you should strike out your comments at the page in question and refrain from arguing against RS even though MastCell has done the very same thing. It is best you rise above their poor showing and send a strong signal that you are above their poor example.--MONGO (talk) 21:50, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

DS refreshes are required annually. Didn't read the rest of your attack. O3000 (talk) 21:55, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Nice to meet you too? I'm fairly confident I'm safe here. Please don't battleground. R2 (bleep) 22:01, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Try looking at the top of my TP - it was less than a year ago that the DS was added - repeated DS templates are actionable harassment. Both of you - O3000 & R2 - STAY OFF MY TP!! You are not welcome here. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:10, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Don't really care what you did or did not do "Objective O3000". I can tell you what you haven't done though, and that's write one substantive article, ever.--MONGO (talk) 22:12, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, he did write this though, [10] I especially like this part, "I think the Holocaust deaths may have very well been exaggerated by some." Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:43, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm posting my required notice that I've started a discussion at WP:ANI about this thread. The content of my post was simply, "Eyes needed there [at User talk:Atsme] before things get out of hand." R2 (bleep) 22:35, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

Dear colleague Atsme,

I was very pleased with your words of encouragement. I live in South America, but I travel a little on this beautiful continent. You're right. Editing articles about South America was the way I found to know and publish information about South America.

Bye,

marcelo melo (talk) 20:48, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

You are welcome, Marcelo. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:24, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sturgeon

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sturgeon you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

- thank you, Chiswick Chap. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:13, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

In a spare moment I've blitzed the article to implement a good portion of my comments. Brilliant user/talk pages, btw. It's Easter shortly (happy bunnies, etc) - what is your timetable for this GAN? Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:49, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, CC - wow! That's one blitz that really helped. Now that I've finished Cherry juice, I'll get on top of the GA. Should have it finished by today. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:41, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Heads-up

The user SNAAAAKE!! has been behaving in a really disruptive way at Talk:Quiet (Metal Gear), with the most pressing thing I saw being his comment about people trying to get him banned. Can you please talk to him? It's really difficult to have a conversation with him involved without it getting needlessly antagonistic and stressful. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 11:27, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Bryn, thank you for the heads up. Hope you don't mind, but I changed the section header. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 11:32, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

When I said the anti-games "games journalists"...

I meant also the ones like this "kill all gamers" (which is a quote from him) child-molester gentleman - from Ars Technica, just arrested by the FBI: https://twitter.com/mombot/status/1137153156243046400 --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 23:42, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Generalizing that a broad and diverse group of people are all "weirdos" and "horrible people" is a really bad idea that will being you significant negative consequences here on Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:58, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I just saw this and agree with you Cullen. I've modified the section header. SNAAAAKE!!, when I commented on the article talk page that I wasn't versed in video games, it was not an invitation to fill me in. Gamergate is waaay out of my topic area and I have no desire to get involved in it. My concern as your mentor is that you are stepping beyond the boundaries that I can/want to go. There are controversial figures in every walk of life and in almost every topic area on WP - it all boils down to one's perspective and POV - but one thing is for certain, when you are discussing living people on the pedia you must follow the high standards our community has established for BLPs and NPOV. Editors do not win content debates by smearing critics and making general statements like you did in the section title. You are treading dangerously close to the point of no return, so please listen to me. If you need to vent or have an issue you want to discuss, contact me via email and in the future, do not even attempt to make such derogatory comments publicly. It truly is a bad idea. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:44, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Humor

I did eventually figure out your other comment was also humor. (: Maybe there is hope after all, that someday I'll no longer be humor-impaired. Iamnotabunny (talk) 08:01, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

- it will make your time here far more pleasant. As editors, we sometimes find ourselves in precarious situations. Some have taken the route of WP:IDGAF, others take WikiBreaks when feeling overwhelmed, some choose semi-retirement, some leave never to return. I prefer a bit of levity from time to time. It makes the insanity seem normal. I have also resigned myself to inevitable outcomes; i.e., the debate struggle is real, and you won't always win...refer back to WP:IDGAF. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:18, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert on climate change

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in climate change. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 15:47, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Do you know what it is??

Can you identify the following sound? See hint in image on the right.

Here's another hint. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:39, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, it's either a garbage disposal or me after eating too much spicy food. (But Fox News (in the video)? Really?) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:52, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

New article

juice, created by Catfurball North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:31, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, combo of RL and WP preoccupation. Haven't forgotten this one.

^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:37, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Response to comment on DS notifications discussion

Hello! Thanks for responding to my comment. I was aware that this proposal as written would be dependent on a talk page header, and have no issue with it. My comment was mostly intended as something for future authors/implementers of alternate proposals to bear in mind, such as in the actioning of the suggestion to "open up a community call for ideas" (—Mkdw, WP:ARCA#DS_Awareness_and_alerts:_Arbitrator_views_and_discussion); as well as just to share my appreciation for the positive aspects of the current system, which didn't seem to have been voiced elsewhere. I wasn't trying to argue against what was being proposed. I guess I should have made that clearer in my comment; I'll post this there as well. Thanks, and sorry for the bother! —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)｜😹｜✝️｜John 15:12｜☮️｜🍂｜T/C 00:48, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

No problem - thank you for your thoughts, explanation and for contributing to the discussion. Happy editing! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 02:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Showing you the evidence

You posted this at Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections then struck it because it wasn't relevant. (1) show me the evidence in Mueller's report that are worthy of an indictment or impeachment and (2) explain why Mueller didn't point that out specifically to Congress? Well, that's why I'm here to show you.

Extended content by Starship.paint, 08:07, 2 June 2019

On issue (1), the source is 1000+ former federal prosecutors. Primary source. Secondary source.

The Mueller report describes several acts that satisfy all of the elements for an obstruction charge: conduct that obstructed or attempted to obstruct the truth-finding process, as to which the evidence of corrupt intent and connection to pending proceedings is overwhelming. These include:
The President’s efforts to fire Mueller and to falsify evidence about that effort;
The President’s efforts to limit the scope of Mueller’s investigation to exclude his conduct; and
The President’s efforts to prevent witnesses from cooperating with investigators probing him and his campaign.

On issue (1), here is the elaboration on each point from the primary source.

Attempts to fire Mueller and then create false evidence
Despite being advised by then-White House Counsel Don McGahn that he could face legal jeopardy for doing so, Trump directed McGahn on multiple occasions to fire Mueller or to gin up false conflicts of interest as a pretext for getting rid of the Special Counsel. When these acts began to come into public view, Trump made “repeated efforts to have McGahn deny the story” — going so far as to tell McGahn to write a letter “for our files” falsely denying that Trump had directed Mueller’s termination.
Firing Mueller would have seriously impeded the investigation of the President and his associates — obstruction in its most literal sense. Directing the creation of false government records in order to prevent or discredit truthful testimony is similarly unlawful. The Special Counsel’s report states: “Substantial evidence indicates that in repeatedly urging McGahn to dispute that he was ordered to have the Special Counsel terminated, the President acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn’s account in order to deflect or prevent scrutiny of the President’s conduct toward the investigation.”
Attempts to limit the Mueller investigation
The report describes multiple efforts by the president to curtail the scope of the Special Counsel’s investigation.
First, the President repeatedly pressured then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to reverse his legally-mandated decision to recuse himself from the investigation. The President’s stated reason was that he wanted an attorney general who would “protect” him, including from the Special Counsel investigation. He also directed then-White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus to fire Sessions and Priebus refused.
Second, after McGahn told the President that he could not contact Sessions himself to discuss the investigation, Trump went outside the White House, instructing his former campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, to carry a demand to Sessions to direct Mueller to confine his investigation to future elections. Lewandowski tried and failed to contact Sessions in private. After a second meeting with Trump, Lewandowski passed Trump’s message to senior White House official Rick Dearborn, who Lewandowski thought would be a better messenger because of his prior relationship with Sessions. Dearborn did not pass along Trump’s message.
As the report explains, “[s]ubstantial evidence indicates that the President’s effort to have Sessions limit the scope of the Special Counsel’s investigation to future election interference was intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the President’s and his campaign’s conduct” — in other words, the President employed a private citizen to try to get the Attorney General to limit the scope of an ongoing investigation into the President and his associates.
All of this conduct — trying to control and impede the investigation against the President by leveraging his authority over others — is similar to conduct we have seen charged against other public officials and people in powerful positions.
Witness tampering and intimidation
The Special Counsel’s report establishes that the President tried to influence the decisions of both Michael Cohen and Paul Manafort with regard to cooperating with investigators. Some of this tampering and intimidation, including the dangling of pardons, was done in plain sight via tweets and public statements; other such behavior was done via private messages through private attorneys, such as Trump counsel Rudy Giuliani’s message to Cohen’s lawyer that Cohen should “[s]leep well tonight[], you have friends in high places.”
Of course, these aren’t the only acts of potential obstruction detailed by the Special Counsel. It would be well within the purview of normal prosecutorial judgment also to charge other acts detailed in the report.
We emphasize that these are not matters of close professional judgment. Of course, there are potential defenses or arguments that could be raised in response to an indictment of the nature we describe here. In our system, every accused person is presumed innocent and it is always the government’s burden to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. But, to look at these facts and say that a prosecutor could not probably sustain a conviction for obstruction of justice — the standard set out in Principles of Federal Prosecution — runs counter to logic and our experience.
As former federal prosecutors, we recognize that prosecuting obstruction of justice cases is critical because unchecked obstruction — which allows intentional interference with criminal investigations to go unpunished — puts our whole system of justice at risk. We believe strongly that, but for the OLC memo, the overwhelming weight of professional judgment would come down in favor of prosecution for the conduct outlined in the Mueller Report.

On issue (2), Mueller would not accuse Trump of a crime, because given that Mueller would not indict Trump per OLC opinion, he felt it would be unfair since Trump cannot clear his name in a court. Source - the Mueller Report itself, Volume II, Page 2. [11].

On issue (2), here is the long version in the Mueller Report

The threshold step under the Justice Manual standards is to assess whether a person’s conduct “constitutes a federal offense.” U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Justice Manual § 9-27.220(2018) (Justice Manual). Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges can be brought. The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through a speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case. An individual who believes he was wrongly accused can use that process to seek to clear his name. In contrast, a prosecutor’s judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought, affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator.
- The concerns about the fairness of such a determination would be heightened in the case of a sitting President, where a federal prosecutor’s accusation of a crime, even in an internal report, could carry consequences that extend beyond the realm of criminal justice. OLC noted similar concerns about sealed indictments. Even if an indictment were sealed during the President’s term, OLC reasoned, “it would be very difficult to preserve [an indictment’s] secrecy,” and if an indictment became public, “[t]he stigma and opprobrium” could imperil the President’s ability to govern.” Although a prosecutor’s internal report would not represent a formal public accusation akin to an indictment, the possibility of the report’s public disclosure and the absence of a neutral adjudicatory forum to review its findings counseled against potentially determining that the person’s conduct constitutes a federal offense.” Justice Manual § 9-27.220.

Here is the short version in Mueller's statement: [12]

And second the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing.
-
And beyond department policy we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge.

So, I've shown it to you as you requested. Remember, you said Show me the evidence that supports the claim of obstruction and I will more than likely change my position. It's that simple. Cheers. starship .paint (talk) 02:33, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Here's an add-on to point (1), if a video of more former federal prosecutors [13] would be effective. starship .paint (talk) 08:07, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

You apparently believe your diligence in posting the above on my TP, despite my strike-thru at the article TP, is somehow a helpful and productive way to serve the project. It was not. I found it to be highly disruptive, especially in light of this information, which indicates a different POV and possible motivation for much of what followed and why I prefer to not engage per WP:RECENTISM. While the current president may be a highly controversial figure, POV pushing is not unique to articles about him. Articles about former presidents have undergone similar controversies, the latter of which is inherent in politics, be it in the US or elsewhere in the world. My goal is to walk as straight and as a neutral a line as humanly possible under the circumstances, and I ask that you please refrain from future attempts to engage me in discussions I have expressed a desire to avoid as evidenced by my strike at the article TP. You are welcome on my TP anytime per the conditions expressed in my edit page notice when in edit mode. Happy editing. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I tried my best, Atsme. I laid it out on a plate for you, not at the article talk page, only for you to consider it extremely disruptive. You have ignored or dismissed the views of (a) Mueller himself in his report and statement (b) 1000+ former federal prosecutors and the secondary source repeating their claims and (c) 3 more Republican former federal prosecutors. I ask that you read at least the introductions and executive summaries of the report. [14] Please don’t take this as a further argument. I’m done with that.

You wrote Show me the evidence that supports the claim of obstruction and I will more than likely change my position. It's that simple. and then struck it. I originally took that statement to still be true despite your strike. Seems that I was wrong. I will take my leave then. starship .paint (talk) 23:55, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, I am sorry for engaging you in a discussion you wished to avoid. starship .paint (talk) 00:00, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Awww..thank you, SP. No foul - no harm. Happy editing!! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Maybe it boils down to how an impeachment vote may play out in 2020 for the house, especially considering that unless the Senate will go along with it, its basically an exercise in futility and may backfire on them at the polls especially in battleground precincts.--MONGO (talk) 20:55, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

As I understand it, the rational case for going ahead (as distinct from wanting to go ahead out of pure frustration) is that in an impeachment hearing the courts are likely to order the production of more documents than they would otherwise, and it is (in my opinion quite reasonably) hoped that some of them will be truly incriminating. . As for the effect on the election, there is also the potential that the republican senators not voting to to proceed can be used against them, in some other battleground states. Which effect would predominate can not be judged in advance. DGG ( talk ) 21:32, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

DGG, I recently learned through the grapevine that the WH isn't the least bit concerned about providing documents. They optimized their computer systems with BleachBit after Perkins Coie convinced them that bleach makes the White House whiter.^[FBDB] ^Atsme _Talk 📧19:43, June 19, 2019

So generally horrible people totally aside,

I've just begen working on the Lancelot-Grail for real, and there's this incomprehensible reference stating "Merlin Proper appearing in "Micha's 1980 edition",Pickens (1994), p. 108 Micha's edition being the Merlin part of Boron's trilogy.Pickens (1994), p. 100 and note 9" which I don't even understand how it's created, not to mention what does it supposed to mean. It's really perplexing me. And yes, it's (the actual subject) that complicated and confusing, but I'm slowly getting it overall. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 17:19, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I guess i solved the mystery, it's [15] [16] & apparently. I still don't understand how it was created but I care less after I replace it. --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 17:25, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Perform your magic,~~Merlin~~...er, uh SNAAAAKE!!. I'll drop by after lunch (it's 12:30ish here). ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:39, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Coral question

The other day I noticed File:Pacific Feather Duster Sabellastarte sp.jpg when you had it near the top of your talkpage (and it's on your userpage). I'm curious about the bubbly-looking organisms in the background, which I assume are corals (or less likely anemones). Do you know, are they Physogyra sp, or perhaps Plerogyra sinuosa? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, and while the image isn't as sharp as I would like it to be, you can just make out the texture if you zoom-in. Also see this image. I should probably include that bit of info in the Commons description. Thanks for bringing it to my attention, Tryp. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm wondering, though, whether it might be, instead, Physogyra lichtensteini: [17]. Plerogyra sinuosa: [18], has relatively larger polyps. I don't know the size of the worm, but I'm guessing that the bubbles are on the smaller side. Oh, and if you think the image isn't sharp enough, wow, I think it's really splendid (and I wouldn't want you judging any photos that I take!)

--Tryptofish (talk) 23:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Awww, thank you, Tryp. That particular feather duster was larger than most I've seen. It was on the gunwale of a sunken Japanese war ship, depth about 90 ft, water temp 84°F. When I first saw the arrangement, I thought the feather duster was surrounded in fish eggs. That particular cluster was about 2 ft. across. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't know any way to say this without it sounding like a double entendre, but that's a huge worm! That being the case, then I'm pretty certain that the coral must have been P. sinuosa. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

😂 I'm feeling a little better so I'll try to clarify what I described yesterday while under the influence of Nyquil 🤧🤒. The cluster of Plerogyra sinuosa was about 2 ft. across, and the worm stood up in the middle of it - I'd say it was 6" to 8" across, but then I was underwater where things appear to be 33% bigger. I had to be careful not to get too close with the camera as it would surely cause the worm to shrink back into its shell. The cluster just sat there doing nothing. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you're not feeling well – get well soon! Yes, that's clearer about the dimensions, and that's still a remarkably large feather duster. That link to how to identify the species is a particularly good one, thanks for it. In looking at it, as well as at a book I own, I'm starting to think that the coral is more likely to be Physogyra lichtensteini and not Plerogyra sinuosa. I'm basing that on the more plate-like arrangement of the polyps, with the bubbles/vesicles not pressed right up against one another. Note in your photo how there is space between each of the bubbles and its neighbors. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Thx, Tryp - I'm getting better by the hour. Looking at the lateral view of Physogyra l. (and video) vs the a video of P. sinuosa, and (various other images), I'm leaning toward the latter. I'm going through my Micronesia photos now to see if I kept a wider shot. What I can say for sure is that it was low profile and hugged the top rail. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Actually, looking at those links, I'm concerned that some of them are misidentified. In particular, the video that is supposedly of P. sinuosa is very unlikely to actually be that species. If you do have a wider shot, that would be very helpful. Also, if you can make an accurate estimate of the size of the individual "bubbles", that would also help. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Here's a pretty good article about identifying them: [19]. And here are some good comparative photos, where the comparison for us is between (i) and (k): [20]. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Marine biologist, or ichthyologist would probably be able to confirm just looking at my photo. Do you know any? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, no, only hobbyists. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:39, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@Epipelagic: Do you know which species it is? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I've also asked on a few UTPs and searched my photo archives hoping I could find a wide shot, but nothing so far. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

The shapes look right in Plerogyra sinuosa, though in Atsme's photo the background is blurred so you can't see surface striations. – Epipelagic (talk) 23:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! And if Epipelagic says it, that's good enough for me. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:48, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Epi!! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:38, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

User concerns

Sorry to keep pinging you about this, but I really would like you to try and reign in SNAAAAKE!!'s behavior if you can. He does good edits, but his behavior is very acerbic and it is not unusual for him to, implicitly or explicitly, make bad-faith claims against people. I know of at least two people who do not participate in discussions with him because it's just not worth the headache. Ultimately, his contributions don't have more weight to me than people's ability to participate in discussions without fear of interacting with a problematic user. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 00:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Abryn, are you referring to your recent discussion with him on his UTP? A few admins have already warned him, and I recently advised him about walking the straight and narrow on article TPs. Oh, and I just added some info at Quiet that might interest you. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 02:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Do you mean this? Also yeah I'm referring to that, and I would have probably just left it alone but he also posted on Talk:Video game controversies in weirdly antagonistic and accusatory ways. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 02:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

And I understand entirely your reluctance to have him banned, considering the value of his Wikispace contributions. Ideally, him reforming himself would be the best-case scenario. I mean, I was given a chance to be a better editor by a number of people, so it's perhaps unfair to not afford him that same courtesy. At the same time, I wonder how many people were discouraged from participating in Wikipedia editing because of my presence. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 02:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

He has been advised. You did the right thing by not engaging him further on his UTP. Not all editors are gifted with conversational finesse and for Snaaaake, it can be a little difficult for him from time to time. He's learning to work through it with a little coaching and patience...and yes, his editing makes it worth the extra effort. We also have to keep in mind that we are collaborating with people from around the world - different customs, thoughts, and languages. I've been mentoring Snaaaake for the past year, and he has done quite well - actually learning that it's better to drop the stick and focus on something less stressful than risk a block or t-ban. I can relate in that regard. About the info I added, I gave you the wrong article, it was this edit but I see you've replied. I got hit with a stomach virus yesterday so I'll probably be out-of-pocket and out-of-sorts for a few more days.

^Atsme _Talk 📧 04:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh no! Please feel better soon. <3 I know how bad that gets. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 04:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Abryn - good news...I'm 98% over it. Whew! Can't use it as an excuse anymore.

^Atsme _Talk 📧 11:27, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Awesome! I'm really happy to hear that you've improved. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 14:13, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

@Atsme: I agree with you the article Pineapple juice shouldn't be merged with the article Pineapple that's just stupid. I originally had a health benifits section for pineapple juice, but User:Doc James didn't like my work and removed it saying, you can only use medical textbooks and medical journals. To me that makes no sense since there are so many websites that talk about the health benefits of pineapple juice. Another good reason to keep the article pineapple juice is because it's connected to the userbox pineapple juice.Catfurball (talk) 19:57, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

The problem was that the sources were overly poor for the health content. Poor source are also being used for other content such as [21] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Understood, Doc. The only edit I made to the article was to add an image. I'll recruit some good collaborators/copy editors and we'll get it all fixed. I've pinged alexbrn and hope he'll oversee the health portion. I've learned more about what is and isn't acceptable as it relates to health claims. I'm optimistic that one day in the near future, MEDRS will become 2nd nature for me. Thank you so much for your patience and understanding. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Thoughts

JFG - any thoughts about The Wall Street Journal lead you prefer to discuss here instead of your UTP? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 11:31, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Some notes on WMF

Hey Atsme, I didn't want to crap up that already lengthy ArbCom case with stuff that would be largely off topic, but I did see your note regarding the role of the WMF. It's a common misconception, but a misconception. Admins and crats don't "outrank" anyone on the project, just have certain tools to handle certain tasks. Same for ArbCom—it is, for example, strictly prohibited from deciding on content decisions, only conduct. So far as WMF goes, it's actually the reverse of the usual "a charity founded a project". In this case, the project founded the charity. Wikimedia was formed in 2001, and the WMF was set up in 2003. At that point, it was essentially a shell organization and didn't, to my knowledge, employ anyone at all. It was basically just a convenient way to be able to allow users to make tax-deductible donations toward the project's expenses, have an "owner of record" for things like the Wikipedia trademarks, and so on. No one really expected it to actually do much of anything; at that time, volunteers ran the servers, fixed bugs in the software, etc., and of course in no one's wildest dreams would those donations one day be measured in the millions of dollars. So no, it was certainly not envisioned that the WMF would be the Wikipedia community's "superior" of any sort. Basically, the Wikipedia community was designed to have as little hierarchy as possible. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:25, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What a pleasant surprise, Seraphimblade - thank you for sharing your insight and for your consideration regarding length. Perhaps I would have presented my comment from a slightly different perspective had I known. What begs the question now is whether or not the WMF's governing documents, such as their Articles of Association, By-Laws, and perhaps policies & procedures (terms of use?) contain any of the language you mentioned above? Did they honor and preserve original intent when the WMF was first established? Can we refer to the latter with regards to the sovereignty of the individual WP projects? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:45, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Yeah but what it should be and what it is are not the same. There is a hierarchy in practice if not in theory as well. Atsme is correct in the order. At the end of the day head office has more power and authority than the community here. As they should btw. Someone has to actually have responsibility for what happens on this site and it is ultimately not the users but the company. It has been that way since there has been a terms of service. It is not new and it is not unique to any online community. The only difference is them starting to use the authority that they always had more than before. Now if that is a good thing or not, meh I cannot say. PackMecEng (talk) 00:42, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

My apologies, PME - edit conflict. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:47, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Atsme, that is an excellent question, and looking at it now, I am rather stunned that no one has thought to ask it. I believe I'm going to have to see if I can find the answer to that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:48, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:59, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Seraphimblade - following is the information that explains the governance and general powers of the WMF beginning with Art IV, Section 1:

ARTICLE IV - THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Section 1. General Powers.
All corporate powers shall be exercised by or under the authority of, and the business and affairs of the Foundation shall be managed under, the direction of the Board of Trustees either directly or through a written delegation of authority.

The By-Laws are the primary governing document and confirm the structured hierarchy which, in our case, emphasizes the role of Jimmy Wales and the Trustees we, as the greater community, elect to represent us. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:20, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I found those too, but the part that interested me more was a bit earlier:

ARTICLE II - STATEMENT OF PURPOSE<

The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally.

In coordination with a network of individual volunteers and our independent movement organizations, including recognized Chapters, Thematic Organizations, User Groups, and Partners, the Foundation provides the essential infrastructure and an organizational framework for the support and development of multilingual wiki projects and other endeavors which serve this mission. The Foundation will make and keep useful information from its projects available on the Internet free of charge, in perpetuity.

I'm trying to find more information on how binding a statement of purpose like that would be, but I think they're pretty clearly exceeding it. There's no mention there at all of governing the projects in day to day affairs (rather, they specifically say that their role is coordination with projects, not governance of them), and that they exist for the purpose of providing infrastructure and organizational support. I also noted that nowhere in those do they state that they're some kind of final authority over any project, and in fact in that purpose statement, note that "movement organizations" are "independent". Whether the entire community could be considered a "movement organization" would, I suppose, be debatable, but the ArbCom is most certainly a defined group, so that would seem to indicate that at least the ArbCom is considered independent in that sense. But it certainly seems that even by their own statement of their purpose for existing, what they've done here is not intended as part of that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

It's legalese, Seraphimblade. The part that really matters is the power that's delegated to The Board of Trustees as they have all the power. Think back to what happened to Doc - think about the position that was carved out specifically for Jimmy. I've served as VP and on the BOD of 2 different international merchandising corporations, was president of a HOA, and I've founded 2 different non-profit organizations, both of which utilized volunteers, but nothing anywhere close to what WP has evolved into. The one constant across the board is governance which includes how the power is delegated (the hierarchy), and who comprises the board. See Art IV Sect 3(B). The WMF has actually done a good job by allowing certain entities to operate independently, but the catch-phrases are all right there in the By-Laws (my bold underline): "Chapters", “Thematic Organizations”, “User Groups”, and “Partners”, as used in these Bylaws, shall be defined by the Board, consistent with the mission statement, and will function as independent groups or legal entities that operate in coordination with the Foundation to implement the mission statement. Chapters, Thematic Organizations, User Groups, and Partners must have a formal agreement with the Foundation. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:44, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

You're far braver than I am! I wouldn't go near an HOA with a fifty-foot rod, after what I've seen out of them. And, granted, it was a small chance; I'm sure Legal looks at this stuff. But was worth a shot, so thanks for bringing it up in any case. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:17, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

So, of all the positions, HOA was the one that raised the 🚩🚩🚩 for you...and you are sooo right!! It was the worst of the worst! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:12, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Based on the wisdom of Tryptofish,^{[dubious – discuss]} I have some opinions about the degree to which the editing community is or is not obligated to take instruction from WMF without disobeying. I'll just link to some of the things I've already said at the Fram discussion. About WMF's legal rights about its projects: [22], [23]. And about whether anyone actually did undo an "office action": [24]. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
- And seeing your latest comment at RfAR, I guess I didn't convince you! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  - *lol* I'm just now reading your comment. I've been all over this project and Commons today!! Oh well, it's storming here and it's happy hour. What more can I say? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok, finished reading and your perspective certainly has merit - can't argue that point - but there is a flip side to that coin. I actually can relate to both sides as I've experienced both sides, and can say without reservation that fiduciary responsibility carries far more weight in the decision-making process than does the time one spends and enjoyment one derives from a chosen hobby or pasttime...although I absolutely do value my hobbies and pasttimes. I enjoy sailing but I'm not going to risk everything gambling on the direction the wind is going to blow on a certain day - I prefer twin Yamaha 250 HP 4 Stroke Engines on my boat, a heavy-duty trolling motor at the bow and a pair of oars port side. - checks and balances backed by a vested interest and a heaping of accountability - that is what I see in the offerings of the WMF - and I hope to hell they don't prove me wrong. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:59, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

break

I've been giving our discussion further thought now that I've read and re-read most of the comments Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram. Having grown-up ^{[dubious – discuss]} in a system of government where we have both a popular vote and an electoral college, I'm not convinced that a project the size of WP would actually benefit as a democracy unless we included some form of voter registration. I'm also concerned that a democracy to govern WP as a sovereign entity apart from the WMF will only end-up more like the mobocracies we see at RfA and AN/I; however, I do like the way we vote for Arbs. I'd like to get a bit more input from a few arbs who actually went through the election process for ArbCom, especially with them being aware of the write-ups/recommendations/cautions, etc. on UTPs. Another question I have is about the hierarchy currently in place:

Arbs
Bureaucrats
Admins
Editors

Where do stewards and functionaries fit in that list? Perhaps Seraphimblade and/or DGG can help? Oh, and is there a list of former arbs somewhere so I don't have to keep bothering the same ones for answers? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:19, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't know if there's a list of former arbitrators everywhere, though those who were elected are recorded at the election page for each year. I'm not sure I'd use the electoral college as a model; it's failed twice just within my life and I know several times before that, and I certainly wouldn't adopt its model of "All votes are equal, but some votes are more equal than others", with apologies to Orwell. But no, I don't think democracy is the solution, it never has been. We decide things by discussing them. ArbCom, specifically, was set up that way since checks of voter eligibility were necessary for it, and it was exhausting for the people overseeing the elections to review every participant to make sure they qualified, so SecurePoll allows that check to be done automatically, leaving them to spend more time on integrity issues such as sockpuppet detection. But overall, no, I would not want voting on things to be the norm here. We resolve things by discussing them, and we always have. So far as stewards and functionaries, they're not separate, stewards are a type of functionary. Their role is to help with things that local communities haven't yet developed the ability to do, such as running checkusers for projects that haven't yet developed to the point of having their own local checkuser team. They're generally forbidden to intervene in matters that a project is capable of handling locally, unless asked to or there's an emergency such as a compromised admin account. But while a steward would, for example, have the technical capability to delete an article from the English Wikipedia, they're not supposed to do things like that (unless of course they also have local admin rights here). Checkusers and oversighters, the other functionaries, are people who are trusted to handle sensitive data and have signed the NDA agreeing to keep that data private, and in the case of checkusers also have the necessary technical skills for it (interpreting and acting on checkuser results requires a reasonable understanding of computer networking). But they're still not "above" you, or me, or anyone. They're just people who do certain jobs that, for various reasons, we can't let just anyone have a crack at. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:36, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

For the list and periods of servie of former arbitrators, see Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/History. And Bcrats have a special place and limited functions--they're not really in the hierarchy. Stewards also have limited functions within the enWP community, vut they have cross-wiki functions. (they also serve as admins for those communities without them). DGG ( talk ) 21:10, 19 June 2019 (UTC) .