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.
Hi, Peter! My last exposure to rebreathers was on my little island of Bonaire - I attended a rebreather demonstration (can't remember what year but maybe around 2005ish). I remember Jean-Michel Cousteau was on-island, but can't remember if he was the host of the demo or just staying at Buddy Dive...or it could have been Captain Don's Habitat...again, memory fails me...plus it was after the Rum Punch party, which is what I remember most because of the fun and dancing. What I do remember is not trusting my ability to keep up with the maintenance of a RB. I also did not venture into tech diving although my ex-significant other was all into deep diving and high flying, but not at the same time. My red line was drawn just north of operating lights and underwater housings for various cameras while still being able to check my computer (PSI, time left at depth), and remembering I was at least 50 to 75 ft. underwater. Like most others, I've heard the horror stories of rebreathers but the most compelling argument for me (on the plus side) was "no bubbles" which was paramount to u/w photography, so my curiosity never really waned. Soooo....what has changed over the past 20 years? I am most interested in cost & ease of maintenance, the products used, and cost of equipment. I'll be using it primarily on Bonaire which is still a NITROX dominate dive location. I've had 3 rather disconcerting episodes of skin bends, the 2nd of which required O2 but nothing in a deco chamber, so I limit my dives to 50 ft max., every two days if that much. Atsme📞📧19:04, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
An SCR without electronics is relatively simple to maintain, and there is less to go wrong, but it can still kill you without warning in some types of failure, so if you choose to go this route, it should be with a clear understanding of the risk. I don't know what units are currently on the market. My personal experience is with Draeger Ray and Draeger Dolphin, both of which seem to be off the market. Both of these are constant mass flow systems, which are pretty safe unless the orifice blocks, and the orifice is a tiny hole which is easy to block if there is any dirt in the gas supply line. Adding an oxygen monitoring system allows a warning if this happens, but costs in complexity and maintenance, also money. There are quite a number of military SCR's around, but I have never actually seen or handled one. They are pretty reliable when managed according to SOP, which means well maintained and set up by trained staff. At present I don't use a breather because I am almost always mapping, and OC just less hassle and adequate for the purpose. My most frequent current dive buddy is a bit of an equipment tinkerer and shifts among two modified ECCRs, OC sidemount and OC backmount with no obvious pattern. He has not managed to kill himself yet, but has had a bad CO2 hit as a result of an incorrectly installed scrubber, in spite of an obligatory 5 minute prebreathe and all systems checked out as good. A good bailout valve saved him on that occasion. I once had a loop flood which led to a scrubber breakthrough and high CO2, but it was gradual, and I bailed out early, so was an inconvenience rather than a catastrophe.
SCR will produce some bubbles, but far less than OC, and quiet. For photography of skittish animals they are a significant step up from OC. Your 50 foot limit makes things a bit less risky in general, as there should be adequate gas in the tank for bailout to OC, and you can run a fairly rich mix.
SCR is generally heavier and more bulky than a single Al80, which is the standard vacation rig. This may be a problem, depending on the user, and how you plan to get it to the water. There is a bit of a learning curve for buoyancy control, but with your experience, it should not take long. No worse than with a dry suit, but a bit different.
Travelling can be a bit of an issue. Many destinations will not have the right size cylinder, or the right connections. If they are set up for breathers, it may not be a problem.
Most of the development recently has been in CCRs. They are becoming more reliable and more idiot-resistant, and in parallel, more idiots are probably using them. It is a bit of a race. Fatality figures are not changing by orders of magnitude, and are still significantly higher than for OC. Most fatalities still appear to be due to user error. A bit like guns and cars, but less likely to kill someone else.
So, bottom line. If there is something available that fits you comfortably, and you are willing to be quite meticulous in maintenance, setup and pre-dive checks. an SCR should be good for the depths you want and for the photography. · · · Peter (Southwood)(talk): 09:04, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Peter - good info to know. Might have to arrange for you to give a presentation on Bonaire some day. I remember well what all was involved in preparation for a dive when I was producing the web promos for the Aggressor Fleet - particularly, the Okeanos Aggressor. We were anchored off Cocos Island (2 day boat trip from Costa Rica) when, during our stay, the ship's dive master announced that the hammerheads were circling the cleaning station and to don our gear. I made haste - quickly grabbed my video camera, put it in the u/w housing that was at the charging station, donned my scuba gear, and did a long stride into the water from the aft platform. The swift current swept me to the anchor line, and I (luckily) grabbed hold of it to make the decent. It wasn't until I was at 90 ft. and had found the perfect spot to record that I realized my housing was full of seawater. In my haste, I had forgotten to put the o-ring screw back on the housing after charging. Ugh!! There is so much prep just getting the camera equipment ready that I'd rather not take on any additional prep or maintenance, especially if it involves life support. Camera gear plus the bulk of a CCR and all that goes into the pre-checks, makes me think that's a job I'm simply not equipped to handle. I dive NITROX in an 80cf steel which gives me anywhere from 90 to 120 min u/w depending on depth. When I dive deeper than 50 ft., I'll have a hang tank with at least 40% O2 to off-gas (because of my prior skin bends episodes). If we're far offshore, I will keep using the O2 on board until we get back to shore. So far, that has worked well for me. I noticed that of late, I am now enjoying more of the underwater world while living vicariously through the divers on the production crew of The Blue Planet. I used a mini-rov on the Great Lakes in one of my productions, (thanks to NOAA), but what The Blue Planet crews have done is absolutely phenomenal. Maybe in another lifetime I'll be able to experience a small portion of it. Atsme📞📧21:04, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Has anyone not flooded a camera housing? I have also neglected to fit the O-ring. I found out at 18m, but the camera is an Olympus TG-3, so it just needed a rinse with freshwater. All my other floods were with all O-rings in place and not easily explained. The predive tests of a rebreather are supposed to detect any inadvertent assembly errors, like leaving out O-rings, but as my buddy found out, they don't always work as intended.
The world is too big to see it all. I have restricteded my ambitions to see those parts I can access at affordable cost, and to dive once a week on average. Occasionally I get lucky, and get to visit other places or dive more frequently. Like you, I get to see the more exotic places on video. Good old Attenborough. What a job! Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood)(talk): 03:29, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
That's not a lede - that's a 5-short-sentence paragraph, typical of what one would hear upon input of the address in a GPS device such as Google directions on a smart phone. I'll see what I can do with it over the weekend. Atsme📞📧22:26, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Could you please take a look at this lede too? There may be too much about alumni and not enough about the history, where I have added more referenced content.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:20, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
And if you can find a way to remove the self-published sources from the lede (which is usually not referenced anyway), that would help. Thanks!Zigzig20s (talk) 23:27, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Do you think [::Could you please take a look at this lede too? There may be too much about alumni and not enough about the history, where I have added more referenced content.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:20, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
And if you can find a way to remove the self-published sources from the lede (which is usually not referenced anyway), that would help. Thanks!Zigzig20s (talk) 23:27, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Zigzig20s - sorry for the delay but the weekend was hectic and I'm slow start today. Re: your question - not quite advertising but WP:PUFF, yes. It could be phrased differently if it's to be included at all. this is advertising] or not please?Zigzig20s (talk) 16:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Zigzig20s - sorry for the delay but the weekend was hectic and today is Monday. Re: your question - it's not quite advertising but it is WP:PUFF. I was unable to find more than that one source that ranked Franklin at all, much less ranking it #4, and the cited source was not CNN; rather, it was Time, and the section is published in Partnership with realtor.com so it does not qualify as a RS. I also see where that passage was reverted, as it should have been. I think the whole paragraph needs to be phrased differently....perhaps something along the line of... From 1940—2010, Franklin experienced substantial surges in overall population and economic growth as a result of its close proximity to Nashville. In 2000, the growth rate surged to 108.19%, followed by a decade of fluctuating declines, leveling off in 2011 to 2.36% with minor annual fluctuations until 2017 which showed an increase to 4.87%." Atsme📞📧18:39, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Phantom Thread
I was about to edit the page to include more paragraphs and the award table. I wanted to save the page first, then edit later. Furthermore, it has 24 wins and 85 nominations, which is pretty much notable for a standalone page. Daerl (talk) 13:23, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Daerl - thank you for bringing the other 2 articles to my attention. I now see there is a WikiProject Film/Film awards task force. I’m not quite sure a separate list article for accolades passes WP:NOT since the very nature of accolades is puffery and promotion. I have asked DGG for his input. I encourage you to continue your good work as I will not revert your reverted redirect, but it is still best to get input from DGG and perhaps others, just to be on the safe side. Atsme📞📧14:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)underlined add-on 18:41, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
It some cases we may need to do it, because ofthe size of the article. I do not think we should otherwise. But including them is `ec content if they are sigificant awards, and in some fields the standards for that can be rather loose. Just like with notability details, my personal tendency is to let fields I do not have a primary interest in continue their established patterns , hoping that they'll do the same for the ones I'm concerned about. Otherwise theere would be too many arguments--I consider the sort of content included in some other fields articles ridicuous, but I can't challenge everyone and I can't clean up everything. I will however look at these instances. DGG ( talk ) 15:27, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, DGG - my concern is that the columns in RS are typically involved in the entertainment business so I question the independent source qualification, but that's borderline. As we all know, celebrity tends to be considered notable well beyond what is considered encyclopedic. Being famous for discovering a cure for cancer is encyclopedic whereas a list of people pretending to be something they're not and getting overpaid for it and then receiving awards for it is not what I consider encyclopedic - it's great for fan club sources but an encyclopedia? Meh. Also, the awards are already mentioned in the respective BLP's of the recipients. I'm only one iVote so I'll leave it with you. Atsme📞📧15:42, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
There are a great many subjects where there is no clear boundary between encyclopedic information and promotion. And we do cover the promotional parts of the world, too, albeit in an encyclopedic manner--so there are necessarily going to be fluid boundries.There arefields of entertainment where this is much worse than cinema. I don't consider "Being famous for discovering a cure for cancer is encyclopedic whereas a list of people pretending to be something they're not" to be sensible. No person yet has discovered a cure for cancer as an absolute, and the nature of the problem makes me think nobody every will. People have made thousands of small contributions to the knowledge of cell biology, and their encyclopedic significnace depends somewhat on what the steps were, and somewhat on what the steps led to. Most of them taken indicvidually are a very small contribution to human welfare as compared to the any important work of artistic creativity. As for what people in general areconcerned with, peoplein general areconcerned with the activities of other people, and have an immense curiosity about them. Human society is based on this in real life, and in particular on tho opprotunity for increased interaction made possible in human evolution by the development of facial expressivity and of language. People prepare for real life -- and escape the limits of their own real life--through fiction. People are mostly interested in even sicentific biographies not for the science, but for the biography--the fascination with someone like Einstein or Darwin or Watson is the same as the fascination with a performer--what could have given them the ability to do these extrordinary things. I can easily go on with this for hours.
As for the specifics. The facts of the awards of RS beyond question as widely reported objective facts. That the people or films may have won the awards because of publicity is not really issue in sourcing--the fact is they did win them. That the voting is influenced by publicity campaigns is also true, and needs to be discussed in the context of the individualawards, for a great deal is known about the publicty campagns for major filsm, and their relationship to specific awards. I think our coverage here is, if anything, superficial. There can be a concern about what awards are considered important enough. The major ones are in the bios of the subjects, ut onot the ones of medium imporyance. Possibly, we may need to consider to what level we want to go, and for what level of film we want the splits. Present usage is inconsistent. Yjr weakness of Wikipedia here is both in that it depends on the interests of the writers, and second, that there are is no rule that says the amount of space devoted to a subject, once it is clear that it is notable, or to aspect of a subject, is to be proportionate to its importance. I find that aburd, as absurd as the fact that to the extent we have a rule it depends , just like notability itself, on the amount of coverage, not the importance. Back to my film for the evening; I have a new bio of Darwin, but that's not what I want just now. DGG ( talk ) 01:50, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Lede
Hello again. Would you be interesting in expanding the lede of Outstanding American by Choice please? It would involve doing a bit of research in terms of when it was started, whose idea it was, how many awards have been given, etc. Please ping me when you reply. Thanks!Zigzig20s (talk) 09:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi Atsme. I'm sorry to have to bring this to your attention. Over the past several months I have observed behavior from you that I believe is at odds with the community's expectations, and what is usually tolerated. I have lost count of the number of editors and admins who have tried to get you to stop using article talk pages as forums for discussion about other subjects, media bias, clickbait, propaganda and the like, as you did here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. I had hoped that quietly hatting your reflections about Barack Obama on the Donald Trump talk page would have had given you the hint that this type of behavior is disruptive, but I see that I was mistaken.[1] To avoid any ambiguity, the conduct I'm referring to is described in WP:TALKNO, WP:NOTFORUM, WP:FILIBUSTER, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:POVFIGHTER, WP:REHASH, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:ARBAP#Final decision, and WP:ARBAP2#Final decision.
Please consider this a final request to stop disrupting article talk page discussions. Article talk pages are for discussing specific edits to the articles they are attached to.- MrX 🖋 12:26, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
This was an interesting read over my morning coffee. Almost as occasionally ironic as the Family Circus or Beetle Bailey comic strips could be (also read over morning coffee), and certainly as humorous. Unlike those comic strips though, the repeated installments of this talkpage Wiki-humor seems to have no end. Ah, well. Going back to concentrating on the java now. <insert cartoon laugh emoji here> -- ψλ ● ✉✓14:07, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
The Obama (and Hillary Clinton) articles are FAs...in any effort to find a path to meet similar expectations, some comparative analysis between the FA articles on Obama/Clinton and the horrid and sordid mess that is the Trump article is not only necessary, it is nearly mandatory. Likewise, comparing coverage of past Presidents is fine if it helps us put things in perspective now with the current one.MONGO15:08, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
MrX hatted the Atsme's comment but left his own "Bullshit" comment with embedded link to an unreliable Youtube clip? That's cute.MONGO15:12, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
I looked at each of the diffs in MrX's post above. It looks to me like there are plenty of toxic comments on both "sides", no surprise there. But Atsme, I do have a problem with at least one part of some of your comments: the contention that it is somehow unfair to cover the controversies about the alleged relationship of religious bias to the travel ban, because Obama also took actions against terrorism arising in the Middle East. It's a false equivalency. There is no question that reliable sources report that Trump has expressed support for banning travelers based on being Muslim – whether or not one thinks that he is actually biased or just trying to address national security, whether or not one thinks that his campaign comments have anything to do with his in-office policies, and whether or not one agrees with the Supreme Court decision. On the other hand, there is also no question that reliable sources have never documented Obama expressing support for banning travelers based on being Muslim, while there is plenty of reliable sourcing indicating that Obama has said that he would oppose doing so. So, just calling it down the middle per NPOV (and you know of course what my personal opinions are), that kind of argument is unhelpful in making content decisions on WP. And to argue that the false equivalency is useful in making the page an FA is plainly incorrect. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:09, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Not sure anyone said anything about a false equivalency being useful for FA. The point is any FA on any similar topic is useful as a template overall for articles no where near FA which I have done several times when I worked on FAs. (I confess this has been helpful at least for me.)MONGO17:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that similar FAs are useful in that way. What I am saying is that arguing that: because the Obama page is an FA and it does not include content about him wanting to travel ban Muslims, so to make the Trump page an FA it too should not include such content – that's a weak argument. When you commented about comparative analysis, it sounded like you were saying that any of the Obama comparisons in Atsme's comments were useful in that way. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:48, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
I just went through a harrowing ordeal this morning with a very angry raccoon in a trap on my porch, and just now sat down to unwind with my first cup of morning coffee when I logged on to find these unfounded PAs against me by MrX. I am dismayed but not surprised by his appalling behavior toward me considering this diff, and more recently on the Trump TP, his POV about the travel ban and omission of material that provides clarity, followed by his response to another editor calling it "bullshit".
There are plenty of other diffs just like those to demonstrate BATTLEGROUND and INCIVILITY by MrX toward editors who oppose his POV, but unlike what he just did to me using diffs that do not support his aspersions, I am going to extend him the courtesy of not listing them now. As for the diffs MrX provided above - specifically the most recent about the travel ban, and the older discussions between myself and MjolnirPants, this diff speaks volumes.
I won't waste valuable time going over each diff individually but will if needed. For now I'm pinging NeilN to advise him of the chilling effect of MrX's aspersions, and to please advise MrX to cease and desist from such behavior. Content disputes have nothing to do with behavior, unlike the behavior MrX has exhibited in the diffs I provided above - and there are plenty more if additional evidence is needed. It is hard enough to work under DS restrictions that are already in place on those articles without having to deal with unfounded threats and unsupported allegations by MrX.
MrX hatted my argument and evidence, and his only basis for doing so was WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The following diffs demonstrate my participation in the discussion about the SCOTUS decision on the travel ban, and the clarity I felt was needed but was omitted for no good reason - see TALK:Donald Trump#Travel ban:
my iVote was a "conditional oppose" and proposal of what I felt was needed;
added that I was ok with it being in the body text not the lede
MrX's POV about Trump's intentions. (his bullshit comment was part of that discussion)
my response to MrX's comment about Trump's "intentions", and included a RS
Tryptofish - you know full well how the discussion between Mpants and I ended yet you are still of the mind to say my comments were "toxic"? Do you not remember this? It is easy to collect diffs of debates and pretend it's disruptive as what MrX just attempted to do. I'm not going to argue about his aspersions against me and other editors while he conflates content disputes with incivility. I will admit to getting out of character once regarding FLOTUS - but it was on a user's TP and the topic was so ridiculous that my normal politeness escaped me for a moment but only after I was wrongly accused of casting aspersions. There's only so much a person can take - I actually used the word "hell" in that discussion. And said 20 Acts of contrition for it. 20:23, 27 June 2018 (UTC) MrX's generalizations in the diffs he provided are another of his attempts to prove misbehavior like what he has done with other editors who oppose his POV - this is about MrX systematically getting rid of his opposition, threatening them and making them afraid to edit for fear of being taken to AE - and all because he isn't getting his way as often as he'd like, and his comments prove he is disgruntled over it. His proposals and edits have not been gaining consensus the way he'd like for them to because other editors are actually providing sound reasoning & evidence in opposition - and that's why he chose to hat my discussion. He does not want that material in the article. And Tryp - your criticism about the religious aspects appears to be a misinterpretation on your part and that is not helpful to this discussion. Again - my iVote was a (conditional) Oppose - so please read more of that discussion before criticizing me over something I didn't do. If you're going to specifically call my comments toxic, please quote what I said that you believe to be "toxic", and I will gladly apologize and try to avoid doing it in the future. I'm not seeing it in any of those diffs. Atsme📞📧17:52, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for making me waste 10 minutes at work, I could of been doing something useful like being snarky somewhere! PackMecEng (talk) 19:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
I totally get it how something like that racoon can make someone's day miserable. Sorry that happened. I did not intend to call your comments "toxic", so I apologize if that's what it sounded like. My remark about "toxic" was about the entire topic area, intended to indicate that lots of editors were at fault and no one should think that, somehow, you were the trouble-maker. Beyond that, we can discuss this more when things are calmer. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:00, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Tryp - she was obviously a nursing momma, which melted my heart. I instructed my ranch hands to be careful with her, and to release her at the back of the ranch by the creek. Poor thing - she fought all the way. I'm confident that she'll find her way back to her babies. I just hope the experience will keep her from coming back. I've also made arrangements for a different style of outside container system to avoid waking-up in the wee hours to a menagerie of wild animals feasting on my back porch. 🤯 Atsme📞📧20:04, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
I remember once a long time ago that a rabid racoon got into the back yard of my parents' house – no fun there either, but obviously for a different reason. Maybe you could hire those scary clowns in the photo above, to stay outside your house, to scare critters away, and probably scare a lot of people too! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, its a hot topic arena and some play nicer than others...no one there is likely entirely innocent so I think of Romans 2:1 --MONGO18:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
I googled Romans 2:1 to see what it says, and the page that came up first for me had a picture of a woman wearing a hijab as, apparently, the web page author. There must be some kind of message in there. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:09, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm going to think of the cute little puppies that whistle britches linked to - laughter and cuteness are good medicine - but please, I pray that no one keeps a diff of my comment here as evidence that I support fringe or alt med. 🙀 Atsme📞📧18:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm already working on my topic ban request at AE... You should have shown more respect to WP:FRINGE.
Seriously guys, the fighting is the problem, not a symptom of the problem. Stop the fighting and WHAMMO! American Politics is a fun topic to edit in again. So seriously, to everyone who hasn't already taken my advice: Go watch some puppy vids. We have drama boards for a reason: If it's not worth taking there, it's not worth saying anything about. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.18:15, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
MPants at work, the fighting is silly all around really, but inevitable when there are virtual SPAs that are here to do little more than find out ways to make Trump look as bad as possible, and much of that borders on BLP violations. One should think before they edit: do I dislike this person or their agenda so much that it will impact my ability to be neutral...and if the answer to that is yes, then they should find a new playground. BLP is not negotiable and while including the bad and the good is important, violating UNDUE and COATRACK is also policy/guideline violating. I really see no reason why these articles should suffer the immediacy of relying solely on current events headlines and craftily worded "news". A slow, deliberate quest to improve the articles should be the norm. I mean even if some find the subject reprehensible, they can rise above that by at least trying to be neutral, or they can vent their frustrations at some blog somewhere.--MONGO22:29, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Please don't tell the puppies this, because I wouldn't want to worry them, but there are just as many SPAs who want to make Trump look as good as possible. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Not that it really matters Atsme, but I'm disappointed that you see no fault in your participation in article talk page discussions, and at the same time, accuse me of making "unsupported allegations" (even though I provided diffs). Shame on you for claiming "this is about MrX systematically getting rid of his opposition" as if you know the operation of my mind, or my intentions. You response is riddled with contradictions, false assumptions, and an astounding lack of self-awareness even after multiple editors have called you out for your talk page conduct.
You claim that I'm disgruntled because I'm not getting my way. As it happens, I not here to "get my way". I'm here to collaborate with other editors to improve content. I don't consider editors with different POVs "opponents." You say that my "proposals and edits have not been gaining consensus" the way I'd like. It so happens, I'm delighted with my ability to influencing consensus by making proposals, debating the merits, citing sources, and compromising on the final product. I stand behind my response of "bullshit" to the counterfactual claim that "there was never a "calculated plan to ban Muslims from our shores"" inasmuch as I actually provided a link to a video of Trump saying “Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.”[2]
Because I care about Wikipedia and I care about truth, I won't stand by while you continue to discredit reliable sources, deal in alternative facts, disrupt process, engage in whataboutism, and gaslight the rest of us. Good luck to you. - MrX 🖋 23:49, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
"...even after multiple editors have called you out for your talk page conduct." And many more who have encountered her and her edits in the last three years have no problem with her talk page and editing conduct. Except for those who seem to have a different political bent than she does. While we are required to edit neutrally, there's no reason why editors can't interact neutrally, and many do. It's pretty obvious what side you are on when you use the same term ("alternative facts") that is used negatively by Liberal media in reference to Conservatives or "Trumpers". Maybe, rather than collecting diffs to clobber with at a later time and threatening editors who see politics and the world differently than you do, you could be more charitable, truly demonstrate you care about Wikipedia (as you say above) and try to work with others rather than battle with them. Continually. And that goes for the others who are on the same side you are and behave in the same manner. Frankly, I'm incredibly sick of the talk page "wars" and obstructionism that takes place moment to moment at the articles you and I and Atsme and several others have in common. God, aren't you sick of it, too? Don't you want to see things get better between everyone involved and everyone work well together, no matter the political leaning? If not, I have to wonder why. -- ψλ ● ✉✓03:03, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
I think I speak for many editors when I say your contributions and presence here are respected, cherished, and appreciated. It is a pleasure to edit with you, as your personality shines through. I find these attacks against you, and yes, they are attacks, to be totally against the spirit of Wikipedia. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:38, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
I wish all this could be put under the "humorous" line on top, sigh. The best advice I received for surviving this place was/is "ignore ignore ignore". I haven't been subjected to AE for three years, but still remember the last time vividly, so in a way I don't ignore as I should. Chin up, was another good advice, five years old, and working. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction
The following sanction now applies to you:
You are indefinitely topic banned from pages related to post-1932 American politics, broadly construed. Please read WP:TBAN to see what a topic ban is. You may appeal the ban using the process described below, but, after an initial appeal, should it be declined, you may not appeal again more often than every six months.
You have been sanctioned for long-time and damaging disruption of talkpages in the area, as laid out by MrXhere. For a detailed discussion of my reasons, please see my comment here.
You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Bishonen | talk09:41, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
I believe this retaliatory action coupled with your 2015 retaliatory block and what took place in between warrants a potential desysop review of your actions. Atsme📞📧11:51, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
In light of the above the focus of any potential case changed significantly. You may have a case of harassment in and of itself, but an additional case of AmPol 3 is needed too. Arbcom is unpredictable. As I am nearly finished with my project and have zero to lose; I would support a case or two cases or a case subdivided into two issues. I would take the weekend off and get replanted and decide Monday since there is little chance anyone is going to undo the topic ban short of an appeal specifically to do so. Also, appeals almost never work until some time has passed.MONGO (talk) 15:35, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Atsme, as someone who is very much your wiki-friend, please let me recommend strongly that you just take a few days to let the immediate stress of the situation subside a bit, with my strong hope that after a little time has passed you will resume your editing as a talented and cherished member of the editing community. That's the bottom line for me. Beyond that, I'm going to make a sort of list of additional points:
It is important for everyone to recognize that (outside of current US politics), Atsme is a great editor: a fine content contributor (including photos), and a real pleasure to work with.
If anyone thinks that Atsme is somehow the one "bad guy" in American politics and that the current problems are not anyone else's fault (although I doubt that anyone does think that), they are spectacularly wrong. Consequently, no one should think that now Atsme is topic-banned so everything is OK. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Bish's imposition of the topic ban is definitely not retaliatory. Not by a long shot. It is a responsible and proper administrator action.
Atsme, I know this is going to sound a little flaky, but I'd like you to just accept the ban and look upon it as a blessing in disguise. Editing in American politics is no fun, a lousy kind of hobby, and you know I've been warning you for a long time about what I consider to be blind spot that you have about it. So edit other kinds of stuff. Just say screw it to the politics topic area. There are so many other content areas where everyone really appreciates and values what you contribute. This should end up feeling like a big hassle being removed from your responsibility, freeing you up to do stuff that is far, far more gratifying.
The issue I have is not that is against policy or anything like that. Bish is certainly within policy to drop a topic ban like that. The issues I see with it, one it was disruptive during a hearing like that. Two there is history there, and even if not explicitly against policy to do so, it was not smart and undermines the process giving doubt. Finally I get the feeling that "welp we got one everything is good now, move along" specifically because no one else was blocked or warned. It goes back to singling out someone from one side for lashings while ignoring other issues. That is the biggest problem I see, and not one that can be solved by one admin out of no where blocking one person they dislike. PackMecEng (talk) 18:36, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
If this is where it ends, then ArbCom and the admins have failed both the base of editors as well as the readers, here. TBing Atsme may be part of a solution, but it's certainly not a solution in and of itself. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.19:16, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
I am just not sure anyone has the stomach to do what needs to be done. Dang near goto a Trump article, look at the talk contrib list and topic ban 3/4 of them? I even might get caught up in that drag net, but eh if it turns out I am a negative so be it. There are not to many I can think of that at some point have not been an issue. It is where you draw the line that will be the hardest part. PackMecEng (talk) 19:49, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
God's honest truth: I'd happily take a topic ban myself, or even a punitive block if it meant cleaning that mess up. Blanket topic bans of the most prolific editors would be a perfectly acceptable solution, IMHO. Let each one appeal individually and let the merits of their editing in that area be judged one at a time. I personally wouldn't even appeal, if I got caught up in such a net. I'm better off outside of that toxic topic. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.20:01, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
I totally agree with you that it would be a big mistake to blame everything on Atsme and move on – and I said so at ARCA. (I don't think that Bish dislikes Atsme personally.) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:45, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
I cannot speak to that, no idea if she dislikes or likes her. More was giving the perception of an issues and undermining the process that way. It would of been better if it was someone with no history, it was not critical to the encyclopedia that Atsme be topic banned that moment after all, and if it was someone else would of done so. I also do not want to give the impression that you were saying others are not the issues as well. I agreed with what you said on that there and you are right. I am just concerned that is where it will end. PackMecEng (talk) 18:50, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Tryptofish, you wrote, "I don't think that Bish dislikes Atsme personally". Because this is the internet and everyone here is anonymous to each other (few have ever met in person, and 99.9% of us never will), "personally" doesn't play into any of this, in reality. Because it's the internet, anonymous internet at that, the chances those we have gotten on well with in this environment means little to nothing. We do not cultivate true relationships or friendships here, just online back and forth -- out of sight, out of mind and all that. It's all completely dog-eat-dog here and anyone can turn against another in a heartbeat if it means saving their place to be allowed to edit. "Community" is a nice concept -- and at one time it probably was accurate -- but it's no longer a community, it's a swimming pool full of fish. Some docile, some predatory. In that kind of environment, one does what they can to survive. Even if it means sacrificing some of the fish next to you. Really knowing the other fish in the tank isn't personal, it's just a matter of who's next to you in the pool at the moment. Sad, but true. -- ψλ ● ✉✓20:13, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Then, speaking as a fish myself, I'll say that Bish did not t-ban Atsme out of dislike. And I'll add that I am very sure that more t-bans for more editors are going to come. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Because this is the internet and everyone here is anonymous to each other (few have ever met in person, and 99.9% of us never will), "personally" doesn't play into any of this, in reality.
We do not cultivate true relationships or friendships here, just online back and forth -- out of sight, out of mind and all that.
I suggest you read up on the psychology of online socialization: These comments are -generally speaking- demonstrably untrue. People tend to respond to online social interactions with similar levels of emotion with which they react to in person social interactions. I'm not trying to bust your balls here: this isn't exactly common knowledge. Despite my own (relatively) healthy and active social life, I also have a history of online romance, grudges and friendships. Theory of mind doesn't stop working just because we're looking at a monitor. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.20:29, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
My point is that these are not real relationships. Real relationships happen on an actual personal level. Something computer/tablet/smartphone screen, text-only interactions cannot provide. Ever. And because they're not real relationships, there's nothing "personal" about it. And because it's not truly personal, it's the reason why people are so shitty to others and so able to turn on those they may have treated previously as friends. Think about what a lawyer needs to do in a courtroom in order to get a jury to show mercy toward their client: make them real, make them a person, make them human. If the individual about to possibly get screwed is seen as a human being, it's easier and less bothersome to one's conscience to convict or sentence harshly. When in a text-only environment, the individual you are communicating with can never truly be real, a person, a human being. And this is the reason why this "community" never will be that at all. And why none of this is personal and never can be. "That's not how it works. That's not how any of this works". -- ψλ ● ✉✓21:08, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
I get what you're saying, Wink, but consider this - we actually have a couple of admins who met on WP and got married. The relationship grew before the meeting. I actually lasted 5 years in a long-distance relationship - spoke every night on the phone - but there comes a time when "being together" and "companionship" take the prize. Wonder what internet text romance does to the old adage, It's not what you say, it's how you say it. Hmmm....If you replace "say" with "type" it screws it up: It's not what you type, it's how you type it. So I guess sound and animation do count; although, not being able to hear a voice and see the gestures may be an advantage. Atsme📞📧21:20, 29 June 2018 (UTC) 😂
"Please do some reading on the subject of Internet relationship, cyberbullying and the effects of social media" Well, you see MPants at work, that's part of the problem here. People who aren't able to distinguish between what's real relationship-wise and what isn't. If one has a healthy view of what a true personal relationship is (and it's not having "relationships" with others only in a sans flesh-and-bone environment), then they don't allow online bullying or negative interactions online to truly affect them to the point of where self-harm or worse. I don't have to do any reading on what the current reality of person-to-person interaction is to know that knowing people in person will always be a true relationship (to whatever degree or level of positive/negative it is) and only knowing someone online isn't. The vast majority of my life has been spent knowing people in my life in person, not electronically (that's because I'm old). Those who've not lived as long as I don't have the same extent of that realization because online interaction has become more normalized. The younger one is, the more normalized electronic interaction has become. Normalized isn't always good. And I'll go to my grave knowing online interaction can never replace true human, in-person interaction because I've experienced the latter more than the former and have seen how wonderful the latter is and how ugly and disconnected the former can be. I don't expect those of younger generations to agree, but I would sure appreciate the younger generations who've not known personal interaction the way I have to not dismiss my personal experience and tell me I need to read more. p.s.: reading about life isn't a replacement for experiencing real-life, either. -- ψλ ● ✉✓21:59, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
But aren't you dismissing other people's personal experiences, by claiming categorically that online relationships aren't real? (Rhetorical question meant to provoke self-awareness; no need to answer). For what it's worth, I think it's pretty naive and silly to claim that relationships are "real" only if they include face-to-face interaction. To take only one obvious counter-example, Catherine the Great and Voltaire never met in person, but their relationship seems quite "real", even at several centuries' remove. Like you, I've generally found my most rewarding interpersonal relationships have been face-to-face, and I'm innately distrustful of purely virtual interactions. At the same time, if you've never had a rewarding online friendship, then I feel a little bit sorry for you. MastCellTalk23:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Doesn't read flaky to me, only incredibly clueless and patronizing. I never understood when folks show up at a mature adults webpage and pretend to be offering stupendous grandparenting "advice"...this is good medicine even if it tastes like shit kind of advice and then add they should edit elsewhere and be "blessed".MONGO (talk) 18:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
I stay away from all articles that deal with US politics, and have no opinion for or against the topic ban, but Atsme's characterization of the block in 2015 as being a "retaliatory block" is pure BS, the block was a straight-forward administrative action for disruption related to this thread about an essay called Advocacy Ducks on WP:ANI, after Atsme had PRODded fourteen articles created by me, in obvious retaliation for me daring to express an opinion that ATSME didn't like on ANI. A deliberate mischaracterization of the block that I of course will mention/explain on AE if Bishonen is brought there. - Tom | Thomas.W talk20:09, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Wrong - it wasn't about you. I have the timeline, and know exactly what happened so please don't inject more falsity in my life than what I'm already having to deal with - it would be much appreciated. And fyi - I still believe it should have been a list, and when more information became available, they could have been spun-off. Atsme📞📧20:18, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Just for further clarification about the prods and what happened after Georgeherbetwilliams closed with a trout all around. Bish reverted that close and cited her reasons adding: "Compare this just now nothing to do with any of the problem topics described here, but consisting of fourteen posts to Thomas.W's talkpage within a few minutes, prodding fourteen of his articles with identical (formalistic) rationales, with no attempt to discuss with him first. This looks like retaliation against a user who has disobliged her in this thread." I already said it had nothing to do with you - I don't even know you, and based on your behavior here now, it's probably better that I don't. I was trying to get my mind off the railroading, and focus on my areas of interest, one of which happens to be exotic and unusual fishes, for Pete's sake. My prodding those articles was not a blockable offense - a simple notice on my TP and discussion would have worked but the admin who showed bias toward me and was dead set on getting me either indef blocked or even site banned is who approached me about the fish - and you were the reason for that. Hair trigger admins are a much bigger problem than what their actions solve, especially when they harbor a bias or have an agenda. Keep in mind, that my participation at AVDUCK was not disruptive - the editors I filed against were disruptive. They were protected because I had already been falsely labeled as an alt-med promoter, then came the COI bs, then came the apologies to me after the damage was done, and now here we are again - repeat performance by the same captain who has shown a bias for and against respective editors. I see areas where disruption can be minimized to the point our admins can focus more on real vandalism instead of terrifying editors they don't like, or trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS in the world. End of story - right now, I'm still working on restoring my faith in the system after the abuse I just experienced. Rest assured, I am well aware that we have remarkable admins who are patient, understanding, and an asset, not a liability to the project. I want to make that clear because they and numerous other editors have been the light at the end of the tunnel for me. Patience...time wounds all heels. Atsme📞📧00:46, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Isn't it bizarre, that as an editor I have managed to get along well with a highly diverse number of editors - all with different views - no behavioral issues, intelligent discussions, laughter, good spirits - yet, I was still railroaded? I rarely delete editor comments on my TP but I did delete a grave dancer's comment this morning, and expect that editor to steer clear of my TP. They know who they are, so I' won't name names. I never did anything like that to them, nor would I even think of it. Right now, there is a lot for me to consider with regards to what just happened, and what I'm going to do next. I've been getting some wise advice along with advice I don't like but it creates a good balance, so I'm trying to absorb it all in hopes that a light will shine and guide me in the right direction. Only time will tell.
What I do know is that there are serious problems within the project that need to be resolved. I am still of the mind that Bishonen's actions were retaliatory and unwarranted. Her actions need review, but not only as it involves me. That is a decision that belongs with ArbCom because there is no denying that her actions were highly disruptive and unnecessary - her actions caused disruption, they did not stop it - so she stepped out of her boundaries. I deserved a chance to know what the arbs thought of the case, and then I could have made my own decision. I was actually leaning toward a voluntary break, but she denied me that opportunity by her surprise attack. It was just plain wrong, so please stop trying to make excuses for bad behavior by an admin. Her timing, and her comment about my added response and the fact that I provided the diffs that showed the bad behavior of others is why she imposed the TB - purely out of retaliation for my actions there. She did the same thing to me in 2015. Those are the kinds of actions by admins that need serious attention - Oshwah's mistake as a new admin pales in comparison to what just happened, yet look at the attention it got, even after Oshwah apologized. That situation ended well between those two parties, and life goes on. Maybe I'll be lucky enough to get a similar result.
Granted, when I saw the charges against me, I was deeply hurt...unable to respond other than saying I'm unable to respond and I didn't want to cause anyone harm. I was responding to my emotion - I had a heavy heart and couldn't think straight....couldn't sleep, either, because knowing what they had done and got away with weighed heavy on me - as did what has happened to other editors which kept flashing before me. I had to tell the truth, and the more I thought about it, the more I realized the seriousness of the problem as it exists within the project. WP suffers other biases, not just gender bias. I'm a bit perturbed with myself for allowing it to have gone on for this long, especially in light of the end result. You just can't extend accolades to an editor for their good work as an editor, and then turn around and condemn them for that same manner of work in one specific area. We don't apply different PAGs to different topics - our PAGs apply equally to all topics. It's a glaring problem that has a negative effect on our editing environment because it makes the system, which is dependent on our PAGs, subject to gaming, especially NPOV which is not, I repeat not negotiable, and neither are the principles upon which it is based which cannot be superseded by other PAGs, nor by editor consensus. Anyway, it's food for thought. Atsme📞📧20:18, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
American politics 2 arbitration amendment request declined
