User talk:Keegan/October10-October11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As for you kind remember[edit]

As the article is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adya_Prasad_Pandey as think you will help on that . Devinwiki1 (talk) 07:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy 10/10/10[edit]

Double Ten Day is, really, unrelated—but we don't appear to have a cool pic for this one

I suppose I should've timed this message at 10:10:10 too, but frankly, I can't be arsed. You know how it is.

Did you know... that tenten in Japaense writing are a little wiggly thing, a bit like a quotation-mark, which makes e.g. "ka" (か) into "ga" (が) or "fu" (ふ) into "bu" (ぶ) ?

So, take time out to have a bit of a giggle.

All the best, and 10-10 'till we do it again.  Chzz  ►  08:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up about an RfC[edit]

Please note that there's a new discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure in which you may wish to comment. It is expected to close in about a week. You have received this message because you participated in a similar discussion (2009 AC2 RfC) last year.  Roger talk 05:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Keegan. You have new messages at McDoobAU93's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

18:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

MU Nashville[edit]

When you get a moment, would you stop by the Nashville MU page and pick a month that works for you? Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 00:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Broken email link User:Keegan/Admin_desk[edit]

Hey Keegan.. came across your admin desk and noticed the 'email me' link is broken (points to an old username without email enabled.. not sure what happened there?). Anyway, I'm not one to edit another person's user page.. so I just thought I'd let you know. — Deontalk 09:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Deon! Yeah, four year old page=outdated. Fixed, thank you! Keegan (talk) 04:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas![edit]

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

/ƒETCHCOMMS/ 05:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but must decline[edit]

Thanks for nominating me as a new admin. This is very flattering, but I must decline for the reasons given at the nom page. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're very kind. I am grateful for all the work done by admins that keeps this place running so smoothly! I love your Butterfly essay. I am constantly trying to explain to new editors, such as descendants of the subjects of Bio articles, or fans of subjects, that they need to edit some unrelated articles to get a broader perspective about WP and its encyclopedic purpose and style. I'm afraid I have not made much progress with User:DarkDancer06, who is enthusiastic but has attempted to push POV and OR edits at several articles. Perhaps you have a way to get through to him/her? All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gimme danger[edit]

Just wanted to say... well put. Wish I'd made that comment myself. Best, 28bytes (talk) 14:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Wow, no RfA on tenwiki:? Or is it just implied that admins here are admins there? Anyway, thanks! Happy 10th! Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 19:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In tenwiki, RFA's you. Keegan (talk) 22:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KHC5 (talk · contribs)[edit]

This user was an SPA editing about Al-Waleed bin Talal, who you blocked last March as a role account. Did you have any reason to believe he was official in any way? He gave the Prince an American wife, Princess Deborah of Saudi Arabia and two children by her, but a new user Themansaid (talk · contribs) has popped up saying she doesn't exist. Please add any comment at WP:BLP/N#Princess Deborah of Saudi Arabia. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 12:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IP Address[edit]

That is not my IP address (over ar aleenf1's talk page) it is 70.50.182.72. Also the location of that Ip address I just checked is from Thornhill which is not even close to where I live. Intoronto1125 (talk) 01:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Bonham-Carter Article[edit]

Keegan,

Article: Charles Bonham-Carter

I'm writing because the above article, I want to re-do the infobox. But the one who has done the article is an administrator which we've kind of had a little misunderstanding in the past. Would you back me up if things go wrong? Also, I'm just a few edits short of my 5,000th manual edit. Feedback would be appreciated. Adamdaley (talk) 06:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please don't think that an issue with an administrator is a big deal. If you have the sysop flag, you should know that it is not a big deal. What exactly are you looking at doing with the infobox, and have you asked said admin who constructed the article? This is collaborative, so you might want to consider approaching the user for help if they authored the article. Keegan (talk) 07:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IRC chat[edit]

Hello, there is an upcoming, very informal discussion on IRC on the freenode channel ##chzzalpha connect (quick webchat link) on the 6th March 2011 at 17:00 UTC concerning ways to improve help over IRC, and other matters relating to Wiki?edia channels in general, but mostly about #wikipedia-en-help.

This is just a friendly, informal chat. Nothing official, no fixed agenda. There is nothing 'secretive' about it - anyone is quite welcome. Some of you had a chat there, the other day. We wanted to invite them to carry on discussions, at a prearranged time - and thought it courteous to ask group contacts and channel founders too. Or if you signed up manually.

If you aren't at all interested, feel free to remove yourself from the names we've spammed this to, which is in User:123Hedgehog456/IRC informal chat users. If you didn't sign up, well, people have been adding loads of names to the list, so someone might have accidentally added your name.

Thank you,  Chzz  ►  and 123Hedgehog456 19:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Message made by Chzz, with help from 123Hedgehog456.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of 123Hedgehog456 (talk) at 22:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

ThisIsATest[edit]

I was thinking... how about making a slightly more active anti social user with ThisIsATest? Obviously it couldn't damage real pages, but for a bit of fun and amongst consenting adults it could get up to mischief to see how new admins handle it. What do you think? Egg Centric 01:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fun is against Wikipedia policy, and so is consenting to being an adult. I think we have plenty of mischief for new admins to learn from- it's why drama is queen. Keegan (talk) 05:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination subpage has been created[edit]

Your application to serve on the Audit Subcommittee has moved forward to the community consultation phase.

Please visit your nomination subpage to answer the standard questions and any additional questions that may be posed.

Feel free to let me know if you have any questions or concerns regarding this process.

–xenotalk 00:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: my block which you lifted this morning.[edit]

Keegan, would you please be kind enough to replace said block, and leave it until it was due to expire please? It'd been in place for 6 days, I made the request of my own free will, and if you look at the block log, you will see it's been done before, and nobody has ever made any form of objection to this. I simply asked for the block as a forced cooldown over the GNAA drama which occurred, and I would specifically ask you please replace it immediately. BarkingFish 17:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the blocking policy that we've been following for years now, we do not block accounts for self-request unless there are extremely compelling circumstances. A request as a cool down measure by blocking is a not a compelling circumstance, certainly not if we also factor in that cool down blocks are against policy as well. Blocks are to prevent disruption, not force a vacation. You can install the wiki-break enforcer, or just walk away on your own. Keegan (talk) 17:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikibreak enforcer is useless, and walking away on my own when I see a lot of WP users on IRC, and have members of the GNAA baiting me by PM is not an option. I'm not gonna let them push me out. I need the time to cool down, and one way or another, I will get it - I was at risk of disrupting Wikipedia - which is why said admin agreed to block me. I will ask the user who placed my original block to put it back for me, please don't remove it again. As I said, others have not had a problem with it, why should you?BarkingFish 22:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hear your response, and I will not re-block. I still stand by my belief that a block should not be imposed as a self-requested cool down. Blocks are issued in maintenance of the website. If you cannot keep your cool, walk away. Keegan (talk) 06:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huntsville meetup[edit]

Hey Keegan! It looks like there's a fair bit of interest in a Huntsville meetup. Bob Cummings also says he might be interested. We turned on moderation for the ambassadors mailing list, and we're going to reiterate the guidelines of bringing most discussion onto the wiki. So rather than let his message through to everyone's inbox (and any more followups to that thread), I'd like to just point people to the meetup page. Care to start it? Thanks for catalyzing this, by the way, and inviting the ambassadors! Great idea. --Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations[edit]

...on your election to arbitration audit sub-committee. Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 17:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and I appreciated your words of support! Keegan (talk) 18:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats on the AUSC appointment. They chose well! Kaldari (talk) 21:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RfA fun :)[edit]

The Barnstar of Good Humor
Good one :) Orphan Wiki 10:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

interview request[edit]

Hello, My name is Natalia Ioana Olaru and I am a final year master student in the Corporate Communication programme at the Aarhus School of Business, Aarhus University, Denmark. I am currently working on my final paper on the topic of user motivation to create content on collaborative media websites, the focus being Wikipedia. As a sample I chose the English and Danish portals. I would like to invite you for an online interview on the topic of what motivates you, to participate in editing and creating articles for this platform. I plan on doing the actual interviews in the period between 1st and the 15th of May via Skype, MSN or Yahoo Messenger. I am, however, open to other channels of communication too. Please let me know if you would like to participate in this interview and the preferred channel.

Thank you, Natalia Olaru Email: natalia.ioana.olaru@gmail.com MulgaEscu (talk) 13:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sent you mail[edit]

--Lexein (talk) 18:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. Keegan (talk) 06:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Osama bin Laden Challenge Coin[edit]

Why did you delete the Osama Bin Laden Challenge Coin?? That coin was not loaded for personal gain or unambiguous promotion.. That coin has become a part of American, and Challenge coin history, and should be treated as such... Is there any possibility of reinstating the article and/or photo????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianna143 (talk • contribs) 23:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article did not meet encyclopedic standards for notability and existed only draw attention to a product, which is advertising. We do not except such articles. In the future, you can sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Keegan (talk) 05:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But on the 'Challenge Coin' Wikipedia page it shows, and describes specific coins which have been made popular/historic items within the Challenge Coin industry, which this coin obviously is... Why can you not delete all of those coins, but you deleted this one?? It doesn't make sense.. Wiki tracker 18:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianna143 (talk • contribs)

Good point. I've restored the article. Keegan (talk) 05:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I appreciate it. Wiki tracker 06:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianna143 (talk • contribs)

Wilson Valdez[edit]

Presumably because he made an appearance as a relief pitcher and got the win for the Phillies tonight. Fullmetal2887 (discuss me) 06:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Keegan (talk) 06:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Birthday![edit]

And a little prezzie[edit]

To share with your pet user, from me: Egg Centric 00:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A father?[edit]

Congrats :) /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Betacommand, resolving discussion[edit]

Hi, Keegan. :) I see you've marked the subpage section on Beta "resolved", but you don't seem to have noted consensus or closed off any discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Betacommand 2011 per closure procedure. (I thought at first that somebody had reverted your closure. :/ Wouldn't be the first time in that conversation.) So that still needs doing, to make sure that participants are aware that you have read consensus on the conversation. (Since I see from the above that you may have new responsibilities especially placing demands on your time--congrats, if so!--I'll note the resolution at the subpage, but I'm afraid I don't know how much of the subpage you've resolved...the conversation has sprawled. :/) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've noted the resolution at the subpage, but because I don't dare guess beyond what you intended, I've restricted it to just the section on Lifting of sanctions (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Betacommand 2011#Propose lifting of Δ sanctions). I think I'm safe in assuming you meant at least that much, since you referred to it specifically. :) Please adjust accordingly to fit your intentions. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the procedure, Maggie. That was my intent, to close that specific part of the discussion. After spending a couple hours reading through the aptly put sprawling discussion I ran out of time before bed to finish up additional parts. I appreciate it! As for the little one, he's almost a year now and quite the crawling handful. Keegan (talk) 22:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Circus elephants.[edit]

Re File:Circuselephant.jpg on your user page, have a look at 1:01:50 in the documentary Earthlings (can't figure out to link to the specific time). -- Jeandré, 2011-07-23t07:15z

It's quite a shame. I took the picture for the absurdity of a wild animal obviously not enjoying its time with an actor that has no point. All the world is a stage...Keegan (talk) 04:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

COI at Fuel Cell Vehicle[edit]

Hi. I see why you removed the information about the internship, but the link to the page that shows the COI should remain so that people can easily find out that it wasn't simply a case of using multiple accounts, but that these accounts were used to disguise POV editing. Since this user may return to edit the Fuel Cell and Fuel Cell Vehicle entries, I put in a short, general note about COI, simply giving the link. Looks OK? Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Midori Harada[edit]

She is one of the main artists for the Pokemon video game series and TCG franchise. Please restore the article, and I will make the necessary adjustments.--immewnity 02:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I always welcome deletion cases to be submitted at deletion review. Please follow the instructions there, and I will refrain from commenting on the review. Keegan (talk) 02:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Xebulon[edit]

Dear administrator. Because you are aware of sockpuppeting tricks of users involved in this report [1], can you please look at suspicions and evidence? Dighapet (talk) 14:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what your question relates to. Could you clarify? Keegan (talk) 06:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see what you were referring to, it was archived. The check on Xebulon was completed, and if those were socks I would have found them in the check that I ran. Keegan (talk) 06:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:IRC#.23Wikipeida-en-help_F[edit]

Wikipedia_talk:IRC#.23Wikipeida-en-help_F  Chzz  ►  03:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TizzR[edit]

dear administrator you recently deleted a wiki page on the website TizzR despite it having references to websites who have written articles about it and confirmed it is a genuine site , 3 people also contested the deletion on the grounds that many people at the moment are asking what TizzR is. You say you deleted it because it was a website and was irrelevant well if that's the case I would like to request the deletion of igoogle , Netvibes , Sthrt , Pageflakes because these are all similar sites to TizzR that have wikipedia pages so what is the difference ?. Could you let me know if there is anyway changes I can make to the TizzR wikipedia page that would warrants it's stay.

Thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steevoo11 (talk • contribs) 09:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the article because it did not have encyclopedic value. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of information on websites or services. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines for inclusion, and the article on TizzR was not an encyclopedic entry. The fact that others articles exist of a similar nature is irrelevant, as an administrator reviews deletion requests on a case by case basis. You're welcome to submit a review. Keegan (talk) 04:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Email Message[edit]

Hello Keegan, just wanted to let you know that I have sent you an email message. Thanks for your help.

-Connor

Hello Keegan, I have not heard any reply from you since I sent you an email last Thursday. Can you please shoot me a line when you have the time.

Thanks,

Connordfc (talk) 18:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry for the delay. I'll send you an email tomorrow. Keegan (talk) 05:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Connordfc (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet[edit]

Keegan, please look here [2]. it's a report on Sockpuppet connected to Meowy and Bars77 who you blocked. Dighapet (talk) 15:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/2011 CUOS appointments[edit]

Your candidate subpage has been created and transcluded to the above-noted location.

Please answer the standard questions and also keep watch for additional questions that may be posted by the community.

Thank you again for your offer to serve as a functionary. –xenotalk 12:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS[edit]

Hey, I'd replied to your note on OTRS a couple of weeks back and also forwarded the message again. As I haven't heard back I just wanted to make sure that there wasn't anything funky going on with email delivery. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 12:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! Found it, processing now, done in about eight minutes. The email got lost in agent/owner limbo. Keegan (talk) 04:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Got it and looking through the links now. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 05:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Let me know by email if you have any questions. Keegan (talk) 05:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Identifiable people images[edit]

Hi, I saw you on the OTRS volunteer list and was wondering if you could help direct me to the proper way to show consent from the subject of an image where the person is identifiable. The photographer has sent in an OTRS ticket, and the subject is his wife. He said that his wife knew the image was being used on WP and was happy about it. But an RFC recently closed to remove the image until further consent from the subject could be confirmed. How do I got about doing this? Have the subject write OTRS? Thanks! Dreadstar ☥ 18:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's the photographer, not the subject, who needs to give explicit permission to release the image CC-BY-SA and acknowledge that the license grants free reuse and modification, even for commercial purposes, and that the license cannot be modified or revoked. As long as the photographer has mailed that to permssions [AT] wikimedia [DOT] org, it will be processed and tagged. Let me know if you have any other questions! Keegan (talk) 03:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the issue, an image was released through OTRS by the photographer [3], an RFC on the image was closed by an admin who said the image couldn't be used since there was no verifiable consent by the subject.[4]. The issue was discussed further on the closing admin's talk page. [5]. Do we need a 'model release' in addition to the OTRS permission by the photographer? If so, how would this be done? Thanks! Dreadstar ☥ 02:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keegan, I think you're missing Commons:Commons:Photographs of identifiable people, which absolutely comes into play in this situation; identifiable person in a private place requires model consent per Commons policy, We do need to verify model consent in this case, and I think OTRS can handle this problem, though it will need to be routed through an agent familiar with the specific Commons policy in play here. Courcelles 04:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then I am not the way to go :) Still, it reads that my advice is sound, have the subject email permissions and Commons should be pleased. Keegan (talk) 07:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So it's just that simple, the subject emails permission to Commons (OTRS0 and that's it? No special forms or specific wording necessary? Dreadstar ☥ 01:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, however commons handles those photo releases. Keegan (talk) 05:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your assistance please...[edit]

I recently tried to get some concerns addressed I had over a couple of OTRS decisions. I am satisfied with Jeffrey Norwitz, after Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 28#Jeffrey H. Norwitz and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey H. Norwitz. I am not satisfied with the current situation regarding how ticket 2010093010005573 was processed. After waiting eleven months for the OTRS team members to return to Talk:Kyndra Rotunda I raised my concern on the village pump here. I was told there that my concerns really belonged on the OTRS noticeboard.

I am not really in an any better position to move forward on Kyndra Rotunda article. The two OTRS team members directly involved each say that it is the other team member who should provide me with an explanation. The original OTRS team member did finally write me a letter, one year to the day after they made their ruling. It was frankly condescending and obfuscatory.

One contributor recommended you as a particularly fair minded OTRS team member, and recommended I try to see if you would weigh in. Another person recommended I try Wikipedia:OTRS#Disagreeing with a team-related edit.

What do you recommend?

The way I see it there are broader issues involved here. I have some general concerns about how OTRS seems to be operating, and I see my concern with ticket 2010093010005573 as part and parcel of my concern that there is too much secrecy over the OTRS team's operations.

I think it would be best for our projects if the OTRS manual(s) were not secret, if the procedures were available for peer review.

I think it would be best for our projects if we could all know how thorough the measures OTRS team members use to confirm the real world identity of outside correspondents. I would like the rest of us to be able to be confident that the measures used are applied consistently.

In the case of ticket 2010093010005573 I continue to strongly suspect that there is nothing on that ticket that justifies considering the complaints on it in secret. Geo Swan (talk) 20:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keegan, 'twas I who suggested you to help untangle this, partially because there is no OTRS notice on the Talk page itself. IMHO such notices should exist, to help following editors avoid specific areas of concern. Hypothetical example: An OTRS flag has been raised, and Wikimedia Foundation Legal has concurred, that the topic area of the (narrow, hopefully date-bounded topic area) 1978-1979 legal matter should not be reported, implied, or referred to in the article, nor should references be cited which happen to refer to the matter; see Ticket#0123456789. --Lexein (talk) 23:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the first subject of Kyndra Rotunda:

I've read the ticket, and the complaint is reasonable and I have every reason to believe the person emailing OTRS is qualified to make a case for BLP problems with the entry and incident, and whether or not we could provide an encyclopedic article without its inclusion. I concur that we can. To be open, I'm pretty lenient minded when it comes to BLP, encyclopedic value, and NPOV when it comes to our articles in favor of the subject if the request is appropriate. I'll also note that this was not WMF involved for any advice in the matter.

On the second subject of OTRS and our agents interacting on-wiki:

I'm quite disappointed that you received a reply a year later that was not up to snuff in explanation and a condescending tone. Our agents are our agents because they don't normally respond that way.

OTRS is often taken to be secret, since processing tickets occasionally provides instances where we can't discuss details about the information we have, such as I had to gloss over your query about the ticket. General specifics is the right oxymoron. Secret isn't the reason, though, privacy is. Agents deal with person email addresses, personal reasons for information that isn't public, and other minutiae that cannot be introduced into a talk page without sounding like whitewash. Certainly not the best situation, as it shows up here.

However, most ticket handling that doesn't involve photographs stay off-wiki. Customers are given information on how to work on-wiki for a solution, or educated about Wikipedia process. 99.2%[citation needed] of emails are handled this way. The remainder are edited if the edit can stand on its own (such as removing information over a BLP concern) and do not need a ticket number or OTRS reference, because it's general editing. If a ticket number is used, it is best practice to use the talk page and follow up.

Again, my apologies that you had a negative experience with this. In general agents do a great job and so does the agent here, this seems to have fallen through the cracks and wasn't handled well after that. Very regrettable. In general, OTRS does not act in secret: it's sorting and answering the mail. Every now and again something has to be passed up, but it's email. Nothing very secret. As far as documentation is concerned, what exactly would you like to see published? Keegan (talk) 04:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for taking the time to look at the ticket.
  • WRT your final question, as to what I think should be made public. I initiated a subsection on the OTRS noticeboard entitled security through obscurity. I suspect some OTRS team members think keeping the OTRS team methods a secret is a valid security measure. But I strongly believe the opposite is true. I have been reading the comp risks digest for a couple of decades. Individuals there who are genuine security experts are extremely skeptical of thinking that kind of secrecy enhances security. Their arguments convinced me that open discussion of security techniques is secure, and secrecy's history is one where the bad guys learn how to penetrate, while the secrecy prevents the good guys from learning and implementing effective counter-measures.
  • The first OTRS team member who commented on the excision endorsed by the first decision maker felt that the sexual harrassment section was too long, lapsed from WP:UNDUE. I think they meant to imply that a shorter section would fit. They based this opinion on the edits, they had postponed looking at the ticket. When the first decision makeer finally made an attempt to explain themselve they too said they thought the section was too long. I don't know whether your position differs from theirs. You wrote "...we could provide an encyclopedic article without its inclusion." Yes, I think we could provide an adequate article without this section. I think we could provide an even better article with a section on this portion of Ms Rotunda's life. I don't know -- are you essentially, throwing up your hands in despair? Are you saying it is hopeless, that there is no way an article can be written that both covers the sexual harrassment that drove her from George Mason University to Chapman University, and that triggered her to sue Zengerle and GMU -- while still complying with all our policies. I don't think there is any topic that can't be covered in a policy compliant manner, with enough effort.

    I don't know what the documents that guide the decisions and actions of your team say, I don't know whether those document say you get to say, "this problem is too complex to explain, so we won't let anyone try to address it, we will censor the whole topic."

    Please note, the complainant didn't even try to discuss any of their concerns, no matter which single purpose account they used to try to sanitize the article. I think giving up is premature.

  • There are a couple of minor things on the ticket that I am going to ask you to consider sharing. The complainants violation of WP:3RR preceded the warning left by the 2nd OTRS team member was ten and a half hours. That is a faster turn around than I would have expected. Can you reveal the apparent date on the complainant's email that instantiated the ticket? Can you reveal when the first decision maker recorded their decision?
  • I continue to be at a loss as to what could be on that ticket that couldn't be discussed on the talk page. Geo Swan (talk) 22:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Privacy is what prevents the information you seek. Email is confidential; no OTRS agent can tell you whom the email was from or what the reasoning in the email. Editing should stand on its own. Keegan (talk) 07:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have responded here to requests I didn't make. I didn't ask who the complaint was from. I asked (1) when it was sent; and (2) when the first OTRS team member signed off on their determination over the ticket. Ten and a bit hours passed between when the complainant violated WP:3RR and when the second OTRS team member issued their cryptic and unhelpful warning. That is a surprisingly quick turn around, particularly when you consider that it took that first OTRS team member almost a year to make even a feeble attempt to explain themselves.
    • As to the identity of the complainant, as I see it only four individuals could possibly be considered to have standing to complain about the article: Ms Kyndra Rotunda, her elderly husband, who had also been a professor at GMU and had also switched to Chapman University; Professor Zengerle, her boss who she said harrassed her; and the dean at GMU who had to be the point-man and spokesperson, as she sued GMU too. I really hope the OTRS team did not consider anyone else as having standing to lodge a complaint.
    • With regard to requesting the content of the message -- I do not believe I asked anywhere what the message said. I did say I was mystified as to what could possibly require secrecy. I think I already know, essentially, what the complaint said. I think the complaint said the lawsuit Ms Rotunda initiated shouldn't be covered here, because that lawsuit was ended by a confidential settlement. So what? Any confidentiality clauses of a civil settlement would bind GMU and the three professors. It did not bind any of the reporters who had already written quite a bit about the lawsuit. And it would not bind any reporter who was not a signatory to a settlement with a confidentiality clause.
    • WP:RS wrote about the lawsuit. Way back in 2005 I decided that there wasn't any topic that couldn't be covered from a neutral point of view, given enough effort, provided there were good references. I still believe that to be true, for a lot of topics that are way more controversial than this lawsuit. Geo Swan (talk) 19:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Stalking) We have to stay on track (improving Wikipedia), and quite concrete. I'd say we've learned all we can learn, as general registered editors, without violating privacy. I know it's fascinating, and frustrating: protracted silences always are. But IMHO we have to assume good faith of the actions of OTRS (other than the above mentioned faulty comms), and especially Keegan here (in my opinion, to date, above reproach in all dealings with sensitive matters.)
  • Going forward, to me the path is clear. We should state the minimal, most neutral, most concise text reflecting the facts of the case: charges, hearings, dismissal, using only the minimal number of the most reliable of possible most-independent sources. Absolutely no original research, no synthesis. I would lean toward passive voice. Keep in mind it is an old case now, which appears to have had no impact on jurisprudence, or on anyone's career. In fact, I should probably write it, as an, until now, uninvolved editor, and no horse in this race. Keegan - your opinion? --Lexein (talk) 22:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Assuming good faith is an important principle. However I don't think extending the assumption of good faith obliges us to assume that the initial OTRS team members' mistakes won't be repeated. I see this as a good reason to continue to discuss the underlying cause of these mistakes, even if this does not seem concrete.
  • I remain mystified as to what, beyond the complainant's contact info, we would find on that ticket that would justify secrecy.
  • I agree that this section of the article should include no original research, however this is true of all our contributions. Other than length, do you think there was anything in the version of the section the complainant kept excising that lapsed from any of our policies?
  • Did you see User:DGG's comments in the deletion review for the Jeffrey Norwitz article, and in the procedural {{afd}} that followed, as to why we don't let the subjects of articles dictate to us, and cherry-pick the version of the article that they preferred? He explained this very clearly, and I strongly encourage you to read those discussions.
  • As to whether you should try to prepare an alternate version of the section, if you don't think you would be exposing yourself to administrative action, I think that would be helpful and hope you go ahead.
  • Once an alternate version of this section is prepared are we all agreed that it can be the object of discussions on Talk:Kyndra Rotunda? Geo Swan (talk) 01:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the OTRS point in meddling with articles[edit]

In theory and in practice, agents advise- generally- on how to get help with an article. This involves information on talk pages, process, and registering an account. In the case of emails of personal nature, agents generally do not edit based on an OTRS reference alone, but on merit in the article. The policy of revert and then discuss applies. The agent can represent the argument, be neutral, be opposed in general and just doing the edit, or ignore the page afterwards. Obviously the last response is the bad one. Now, the agent should have apprised the subject or correspondent that it's up to the community, and if it sees fit to include the information in a relative, NPOV, encyclopedic tone; we cannot assist to whitewash the article. Once upon a time, a few years ago, agents would just reference a ticket number and don't dare reverse it. That is not the case these days, we've gone to lengths to restore OTRS issues to the community. Sometimes this is still vague and unhelpful. In any case, it applies to the current subject. If it's talked about, sourced, and shown encyclopedic by community agreement, there's Wikipedia. Hopefully, the subject gets it. Keegan (talk) 07:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personal information?[edit]

The Admins had to examine that vid. I know it can be abusive If we gain personal informations from that. It was not mine and I know it is not a good solution to post a youtube video, however that contains 'interesting' informations about the 'sockpuppetmaster', User:Iaaasi. You do not have to threat me I know the rules well. He revealed his email on the wiki: [6]. It is not entirely personal information in this case.Fakirbakir (talk) 07:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

His Email is deleted by now (you can check the deleting in the history by User Iaaasi).Unfortunately User Iaaasi monitors my comments.Fakirbakir (talk) 08:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Discussion Page Vandalism[edit]

Hi Keegan,

The discussion page for the article titled, Comma Johanneum, appears to have been vandalized or highjacked. Almost all discussion over the last several years (a lot of information) has been deleted and has been replaced by comments by someone identified as "StevenAvery" during September and October of 2011.

I don't know whether this person identified as "StevenAvery" actually is Steven Avery or whether this person is someone who is pretending to be Steven Avery. What I do know from non-wiki discussion forums regarding King James Only-ism is that a person identified as Steven Avery frequently presents himself as a PRO-Johannine-Comma zealot.

Since the deleted material on the discussion page for the Comma Johanneum article was almost entirely ANTI-Johannine-Comma in nature, it is logical that the mentality of a PRO-Johannine-Comma zealot might be responsible for the deletion of that material.

When material is inappropriately deleted, is it gone forever?

In the article itself, a new section titled "notes" features 12 notes that are pro-Johannine-Comma. I don't know whether or not the person identified as "StevenAvery" on the discussion page is the person who added those 12 notes. I don't see anything wrong with adding pro-Johannine-Comma material either to the article itself or to the discussion page, even though I strongly disagree with it. It is, after all, the other view regarding this topic. However, I have a big problem with previously existing material being arbitrarily deleted, as has been done on the discussion page.

7Jim7 (talk) 03:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE. I reverted the discussion page for the Comma Johanneum article to what it was before it was replaced by Mr. Avery's comments. It now contains the preexisting material plus some comments that Mr. Avery add to it. I left a message on the discussion page and on Mr. Avery's talk page stating what I did and telling him that he can add whatever comments he wishes as long as he does not delete the preexisting material. I'll wait and see how he reacts. 7Jim7 (talk) 16:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly the right way to handle it. Good work. Keegan (talk) 17:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE 2. Please disregard my previous complaint. I've discovered that MR. AVERY DID NOTHING WRONG. The older discussion material had simply been automatically archived by Miszabot. I've reverted the discussion/talk page for that article to the way that I had found it (the older discussion material can be viewed by clicking either "archive 1" or "archive 2" on the discussion/talk page), and I've apologized to Mr. Avery on that discussion/talk page and on Mr. Avery's talk page, and now I apologize to you for involving you in what turned out to be my false accusation against Mr. Avery. I'm sorry. Jim. 7Jim7 (talk) 05:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Footnotes[edit]

Hi Keegan,

I edited the grammar section in the Comma Johanneum article, which resulted in footnotes 30 and 31 in the previous version being replaced by footnotes 38 and 39 in reference to the same two things in the current version. I can't (or don't know how to) edit the footnotes section of the article to remove footnotes 31 and 32. What should I do?

Jim

7Jim7 (talk) 08:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I see what happened. A fragment of a paragraph that I thought had been deleted had been moved to a different section and was still present in the article. When I deleted it, there was no more redundancy in the footnotes. 7Jim7 (talk) 21:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Keegan/October10-October11&oldid=1088914095"