User talk:Atama/Archive 11

Keithbob
You write "Keithbob's connection with the movement was never hidden." Are you sure? What exactly is his connection with the movement, in your opinion? How did you come to form that opinion? Hipocrite (talk) 07:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * He was one of a group of editors that I worked with many years ago. He even went by a different user name at the time, "Kbob". I knew back then that he had a pro-TM leaning. And I've had a number of contacts with him over the years following, as well as others in that group (and those who opposed that group, such as Doc James, who I have respect for as well, and Will Beback who I worked beside as an admin countless times at various places). My experiences with all involved were pleasant even though they tend to bicker against each other. (With the possible exception of Fladrif, who was often a bit too aggressive, and the definite exception of The7thDoctor whose sockpuppets kept causing trouble.) It's almost 5 years later and they're still at it. As for any connection to the movement itself, that I never witnessed even though it was alleged. A number of allegations were tossed back and forth, and no COI was ever found. I thought that the Arbitration case summed it up well; there were some editors who were more pro TM, and others who were more opposed. None of the COI allegations that were brought forth (and there were many) had any meat to them. As far as more specific examples, it has been years, I can't take the time now unfortunately to dig everything up. Some stuff is buried in COIN archives, some in the TM archives, some on user talk pages, etc. I just know the opinion I have of Keithbob as one of the more level-headed members of that group of people in what were often very volatile arguments.


 * I hope this answered your question well enough. Again, this is just my opinion, and the impression I came away with from many varied discussions. --  At am a  頭 08:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * No, not really. Let me put it this way... Imagine that Company X had a company town in South Masapequa New York (not all of Masapequa, which was the smallest town I could think of, because Farfield is only 9k people). By company town, I mean that it was basically nothing but that company and offshoots of that company. Then imagine you had an editor who lived in that company town, who you, as a believer that that editor is generally a good person, had a "pro-company leaning." Do you find it even remotely plausible that said editor doesn't have a conflict of interest? Don't you find it completely fucked up that he's still denying it? Hipocrite (talk) 13:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Atama, as you mention above, it seems obvious that Keithbob has a connection to the TM movement. But he is explicitly denying that he has a COI ("as I have stated more than once, I do not have a conflict of interest on the TM topic"). I'm having real trouble reconciling the idea that he's "never hidden" his connection to the movement with his outright denial of any potential conflict of interest. I think that's what Hipocrite is getting at, albeit using slightly more emphatic language. MastCell Talk 19:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * These are allegations that have been gone over multiple times. A conflict of interest requires a direct connection to the organization. This is all old news and nothing has changed for almost 5 years. For my answer, just look at the COIN archives. --  At am a  頭 20:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. I didn't mean to beat a dead horse - apologies. MastCell Talk 20:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No need to apologize! I've known both of you for a while now, spoken with you lots of times at various places. I respect you both and I totally understand your concerns, I just don't share them. I haven't been very active on Wikipedia for a long time but all else aside it's good to see there are still familiar faces around. :) --  At am a  頭 20:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * In any case the RfA seems heading into WP:SNOWBALL territory so this is probably all moot. --  At am a  頭 20:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Whisperback
11:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Please see
User:Smallbones/Questions on FTC rules - Smallbones( smalltalk ) 15:53, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks - Smallbones( smalltalk ) 05:00, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks !
Hello, Atama ! Thank you for your kind welcome ! Though registered for some time now, I am indeed quite new to Wikipedia, and till now intervened only sporadically. So it's with undisguised pleasure that i accept your help offer. In fact I have already a question : why, when I click on my user name on an english wikipedia page, it says :

User:Krazycram From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Wikipedia does not have a user page with this exact name. In general, this page should be created and edited by User:Krazycram. If in doubt, please verify that "Krazycram" exists.

?

Are there frontiers on Wkipedia ? ( I am French and registered on fr.wikipedia. You can read (if you read French—if not, I will present myself later in English) my presentation at https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Krazycram )

Well, anyway, again, it was very kind of you to send me this message and I really appreciate.

Looking forward to future exchanges,

All the Best,

Krazycram (talk) 21:59, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

(Well, I typed the four tides but nothing happens— hope it works !


 * Unfortunately, I have no formal training in French and what I little I understand is through deduction, I really can't say I can speak or read it to any useful degree. I think I can understand some of your user page, where you state that you are a journalist and a translator for English and Italian (which is pretty great) and that you've been editing since 2010.


 * Every editor on the English Wikipedia has a user page and a talk page. It's the same as the French Wikipedia, where I can see that your user page is here, and your discussion page is here. By default neither page exists for an editor until someone creates it. I created your talk page by leaving a welcome, and you can create your user page by leaving information about yourself, or almost any other information you want to provide. Guidance on what is appropriate for an English Wikipedia user page is here. Editors are given a lot of freedom in what they can have, my recommendation is to include any information that is relevant to Wikipedia. From what I've managed to understand from your French Wikipedia user page, the information that you have there would be perfect for here (except translated into English, of course). I use my own user page to tell a few things about myself that I think would matter here (where I live, what I do for a living) and my philosophy about Wikipedia.


 * I'm an administrator here on Wikipedia, which doesn't mean a lot except that I have a few tools that other editors don't, and there are a few actions I'm allowed to make that others might not be able to do, but it doesn't give me any special authority or status. I've been around for more than 7 years, though, and I've learned a lot since my time here, so I'm happy to help you with any questions you might have. Again, welcome, and I think you're doing a great job here so far. --  At am a  頭 22:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Shit happens
We all make mistakes. Apology accepted. No hard feelings. Next time, when you doubt the appropriateness of a response, especially something as Draconian as blocking a well established editor, follow you instincts. And give them a warning. But the Inquisitional atmosphere at WP:ANI is appalling. There is no WP:AGF or presumption of innocence there. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 22:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sorry again. Thank you for being so accepting of my apology. ANI is generally the last place you ever want to take an issue. I spend a lot of time there responding to problems, but I only once ever opened a thread there and I regretted it. I feel like there's a lot of good coming out of that board (or I would avoid it entirely) but the presumption of guilt is often too strong and AGF is forgotten or downplayed. Partially that's because so much bad behavior is highlighted there, but partially it's because there's a persistent drama culture. One thing I try to do is make an effort to lessen the drama (though in this case I escalated it) by encouraging discussion and offering compromises.


 * I don't know if I should be comforted, or saddened, but I remember when ANI was actually worse. A few years ago there was a unified effort to limit the amount of drama by getting people into the habit of closing threads when they got too far or the issue was either resolved or there seemed to be no action needed. It's refreshing to see that threads now get "closed", and the emphasis at ANI is to try to close threads as soon as a conclusion is reached (or it's determined that a conclusion can't be reached). That used to almost never happen. --  At am a  頭 22:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * If I may chime in, one of the issues with WP:ANI is that all too often disputes between individuals get escalated in the hot house atmosphere it creates and the first to make an accusation gets more attention whether their original complaint was justified or not. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Atama, I remember those days too, and at the time I made concerted efforts to close threads as soon as possible. I still do that every now and then. I remember Fluffernutter being involved in those discussions, and I closed a bunch of things "per Fluffernutter's rule". I still believe that the "A" in ANI should be taken more seriously, to avoid the kinds of free-for-all that makes ANI sometimes an awful place. Drmies (talk) 01:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

ANI
You're hanging out at ANI more. Good--thank you. I always value your input, your knowledge, and your common sense. Drmies (talk) 20:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's really kind of you to say that, I appreciate it. It doesn't matter how long I've been on Wikipedia, deep down I still feel like a newbie who doesn't know what he's doing and I'm wondering why I don't get called out for it more often. I think one reason is because I take Wikibreaks, spontaneously and for longer periods that I plan to, and when I come back I worry about what I missed in the interim and what I'll get wrong because of it. But I like to help people if I can, that's why I hang out there. --  At am a  頭 21:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your calm presence, too,  At am a , enough that I came to visit your User page. The times when I do check in at AN/I it often seems like everything is either at 0 mph or 90 mph. Complicated cases receive little admin involvement while a discussion about a possible community ban can go from posting it, discussion, voting and ban in less than a day. I'm seeing less of the dozen editors or so that I noticed in the fall were quick to jump on the "ban that IP" bandwagon which I think is a good thing. A few months ago, there used to be more of a pile-on, either for or against the OP.
 * I have a few questions I'd like to get some admin feedback on but they aren't a "case" meaning, it's a policy discussion rather than a complaint about a specific editor. Perhaps AN is the correct forum for this. One concern is that I see IPs quickly blocked (sometimes the same day they post their first edit) and labeled a "sock" without any apparent evidence to support a case (or it would be at AN/I). Other editors active in anti-vandalism efforts will label an account as a proxy for a blocked editor (again, without evidence but just a hunch) and revert all of their edits. WP:DUCK gets invoked with seems like it gives license to harass new editors without having to go through due process. When I question this behavior, I get told that I'm enabling trolls because I don't support these wholesale reverts.
 * Didn't mean to go on so long on this tangent, it's just my current pet peeve and since I first started editing as an IP (for years), I don't like to see them targeted as suspicious without any justification. Liz  Read! Talk! 00:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Liz, I agree with your points about IP editors getting a bum ride. Not to excuse the response but I would suggest you spend a little time on anti-vandal patrol and when you've observed the volume of tedious and childish edits from IP editors, the knee-jerk response to IP editors is more understandable.  I've also seen it from the other side, I'm aware of a Chilean IP editor who responds in such an aggressive and boorish manner but gets away with it time and again as he constantly IP hops.  Were he a named account he'd have been blocked years ago.  I believe User:Drmies remembers him.  Problem editors who are blocked and resort to IPs are also dreadfully easy to spot, so WP:DUCK does get invoked a lot.  Wee Curry Monster talk 00:40, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I get confused. There's a few IPs with whom I get along because they make positive edits and get crap from registered accounts, but some of them do indeed lash out, paying back as good as he gets. WCM, I don't let people "get away with it" because they hop; the hopping isn't always voluntarily. Sometimes people get away with it because they aren't detected, sure, but that's unfortunate, nothing more. And let's remind ourselves that some of the registered editors are boorish too, but they can often afford to be passive-aggressive because the benefit of the doubt is never given to the IP. Drmies (talk) 00:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I wasn't implying you did let them get away with it (far from it) and I apologise if I gave you that impression. Yes indeed, he often gets away with it from a lack of detection more than anything else.  I violently agree that sometimes IP editors get crap from registered accounts and this isn't helpful.  Sadly a lot of it is down to the jaundiced experience of editors, one of the reasons I stopped patrolling is I recognised I was getting jaded.  Regards, Wee Curry Monster talk 01:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Editing with an IP can be an odd experience. In one sense, you're less anonymous, because your IP address may potentially give away personal information. It can be used to geolocate you to a particular part of the world, or more specific info (such as being in a block of addresses belonging to a school or other organization). But unless you have a static IP, your edit history could point to multiple people, so we can only assume from behavioral similarities if edits made from an IP were all from the same person. Without being able to look at a person's edit history, it makes it more difficult to form an opinion of that person, they're an unknown factor. So the trust level is less than it would be for a person with an established account, even if the IP belongs to someone who has been editing Wikipedia for more than a decade.


 * A similar level of distrust is given to new editors, for the same reason. With one exception; there is a great chance for an assumption that mistakes from the editor are due to their newness, and not from deliberate disruption or negligence. There is the hope that if they get some help they can grow to being a useful, helpful, and productive editor. This comes from the fact that they took the time to go through the process to create an account, and in the future we will be able to look at their editing history and see what they've done. So they're likely to receive an assumption of good faith from an established editor.


 * I try to treat new editors and IP editors fairly. I've sided with either kind of editor in a debate many times. It's easy to do if you remember that there's a person at the other end no matter what they look like on your computer screen. I have a bias favoring established editors, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Established editors, in my mind, have earned that trust through their track record. It's the logical and reasonable thing to do. That doesn't mean treating new and anonymous editors like second-class citizens, but you also don't pretend it doesn't matter either.


 * I can't comment on people who block or revert new and IP editors because it varies from case-to-case. I've blocked people numerous times because they're clearly trying to evade a ban or block, and are editing as an IP or pretending to be a new editor. It's easy and dangerous to abuse WP:DUCK, but sometimes it is essential. There are a number of editors (admins and non-admins) who have enough experience dealing with particular disruptive editors who can instantly tell from a person's editing pattern, or communication idiosyncrasies, or other factors who they are and can and will identify them immediately. It can seem somewhat fascist to allow a person to unilaterally make those determinations, but over the years I've come to trust those individuals because they know what they're doing. Like Wee Curry Monster says above, it takes some time volunteering in those areas before you can appreciate what they do and how they do it, and why it's necessary. And I've sometimes been able to do it too in my work with SPI and stopping other kinds of disruption. I'm not a "vandal fighter", I prefer to act more as an assistant on this project than as a bouncer, but sometimes the best way to help is to keep out the people who do more harm than good.


 * Sorry about rambling a bit, but this is something I've had to think about and learn over my time here and it's helpful for me to get this out from time to time. --  At am a  頭 01:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

COI stuff
Hi Atama. I noticed your participation on my COIN post and at the new ToS discussion and figured since you have an interest in COI, I would see if you were interested in chipping in on stuff like this. This article has some mild signs of COI from my prior participation 1.5 years ago, mixed with some poor editing from a now-banned editor that was harassing/stalking me at the time. The proposed draft is literally 5 paragraphs, which is about right for this particular company.

Due to the volume of my COI work and the manner in which I perform it, my needs for collaboration are bottomless and I am always trying to spread the burden of working with me among as diverse of a set of editors as possible. However, I figure it's personal choice. Many editors don't want to work (for free) with an editor that is sponsored. So I'll take no offense if you simply choose not to. CorporateM (Talk) 23:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to help as I have time. I have no problem working with paid editors, I've even worked with PR folks and talent agencies, communicating on and off Wikipedia at the request of the WMF (though I haven't been asked to do any of that stuff for awhile). I don't have any hang-ups about that sort of thing. I have mixed feelings about paid editing in concept, but I definitely don't mind working with certain paid individuals like yourself who are transparent and honest about what they do and who ultimately improve the project. --  At am a  頭 23:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I think having mixed feelings is the right and proper place to be. Those with strong opinions on the subject tend to AGF too hard or ABF too hard. Though to be honest a five-paragraph stub on a small company is probably only of very marginal value/importance to Wikipedia. However, there are certainly other areas where my contributions are more weighty. The Fluor Corp. article I am working on comes to mind. Many of the sources are hard-cover books and archives I dug up at the library - that kind of research on a $30 billion company is of immense value.


 * Anyways, thanks in advance!! I noticed Drmies already started making some edits to the SMS Audio page I linked to. If you have time to take a look at my draft at Talk:SMS_Audio I'd be thankful (unless he beats you to it). CorporateM (Talk) 01:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Atama. There is a much larger body of work I'd love your input on (see Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard), but I see you've been active on that board and will probably see it anyway! CorporateM (Talk) 21:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've had a look over Fluor Corp. already, though I haven't actually done anything yet. I think Drmies has done a great job as SMS Audio as it is so I don't think my input is needed (or will be helpful, it already looks good to me). I'll chime in at COIN as well. --  At am a  頭  21:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Hrm. I saw user:Drmies' edits to SMS Audio. I didn't know if those were the only edits he felt were needed, or if it was just some quick things he spotted. It still contains trivial information like "In June 2012 SMS headphones were marketed through QVC infomercials" and a promotional plug for Nohe "Nohe was a former Gillette executive who founded KonoAudio in 2007 out of a personal interest in music and high-end audio equipment." It uses primary sources for incorporation dates in different states and eek! "Kleer is a 2.4GHz 16 bit platform" Verbotten word! Also none of the new information was added. Tickle me demanding. But I don't want to pile everything on you - the Fluor article is a big ask already being that it is a large company/article. I'll pester someone else and spread myself around a bit. CorporateM (Talk) 22:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I'll do what I can. I missed what you mentioned here, I agree with what you said, I just didn't see it. As I've said before, I don't have the highest skill level when it comes to article content, and I'm obviously not as good as you are. I've definitely never gotten an article anywhere close to GA before. But I'll do what I can. --  At am a  頭 22:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. North also reviewed my SMS Audio work and I implemented some minor edits based on his feedback. I wanted to make sure if you do have any comments that you've had a chance to chime in before he or someone else fulfills the Request Edit. Or, obviously, you may choose to do so yourself.

Since you mentioned you were more of a moderator than content-creator you may also have an interest in chipping in at Yelp, Inc.. There have been a lot of disagreements between editors on a lot of issues. If those arguments are a result of my COI, I am somewhat leaning towards that maybe I should just abstain from the article in the future, if editors do not feel my participation is helpful and/or are generally uncomfortable with it. However, I am also curious if I am just use to working on mostly-abandoned articles and I should not take the arguing so seriously, as many of the arguments on that page have been between keithbob, candle and Wikidemon.

You are probably much more adept than I at resolving arguments and I'm afraid I've made quite a mess of my own attempts. CorporateM (Talk) 22:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I know Keithbob and Wikidemon, I'll take a stab at it soon, thanks. --  At am a  頭 04:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Nanshu
He finally posted in the ANI thread after changing its title and using his comment to continue to talk down to me.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 13:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

He's still at it, using "knowledgeless control freak" to refer to me twice.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 16:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Do you believe a block here will really be a useful measure of controlling his behavior? Considering before this dispute ran wild, his last period of edits was in August 2013.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 16:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe, maybe not. The usual procedure with personal attacks is generally to warn a person, and if they don't stop, to block them. The threat of a block might not work, but maybe a block will. I've seen a short block be enough to cause a person to change. Blocks are supposed to be a way to protect the encyclopedia from disruption, and they do that either by preventing a person from participating or acting as a deterrent. If Nanshu sees that their behavior is counter-productive because it will prevent them from participating in areas that they want to, it might work. But we'll see. I don't like blocking Nanshu, because I've seen even you agree with their actions from time to time and I think they have knowledge that is useful. They just need to stop turning disagreements into battles. --  At am a  頭 16:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Article you deleted that is back
I marked an article for deletion under the A7 criterion. You deleted but it is now back. Should it get re-deleted? It is a different user now, but the previous user who made it was making articles about himself and his own films. Thanks Reedman72 (talk) 05:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for getting in touch with me. Actually, I deleted the article under the G7 criterion is for an article which was deleted by the author and sole significant contributor. Basically, if someone creates an article and nobody else makes any significant changes to it, and then the author wants to get rid of it, we allow that. The article has so far been deleted 4 times per speedy deletion; twice for the G7 criterion by myself and User:Acroterion, and twice for the A7 criterion by JohnCD and User:Anthony Bradbury (Anthony also cited G11 because it appeared promotional at the time he deleted it).


 * I don't see that it meets any of those criteria at the moment. By citing his appearance in a number of TV shows and films, it makes a credible claim of importance, so A7 doesn't apply. (An article only need claim the subject is notable with a plausible reason to avoid speedy deletion, it doesn't need to prove notability with significant coverage in reliable sources.) It's a bit promotional (the sentences that speak of his dedication to his mother and how proud she was of him are unencylopedic) but you can easily trim that from the article without removing context or completely rewriting it so G11 doesn't apply. And since the author isn't trying to delete it, G7 doesn't apply. The proper way to decide if the article is eligible for deletion is an AfD discussion, which is now in place, so everything seems in order.


 * Just a note, if the AfD results in a deletion and the article is further recreated without addressing the reasons for the original deletion, it can be deleted per the G4 criterion. If it is repeatedly recreated, an administrator may make the judgement call to salt the article to prevent it from being recreated, so this isn't necessarily an endless cycle. Also, if a single editor recreates the article after being warned, they can also be blocked for disruption. --  At am a  頭 22:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

You edited a page, I did too
Hi, Atama.

I'm a very light Wikipedian and in some of your stuff I see that there are whole genres or categories of Wikipedians that I know nothing about.

You edited a page ("Experience Project") that I also edited. You mentioned that the edited version as you left it required a "more skilled hand" than yours. I thought you did a pretty good job; you seem to have some skill. The page as I left it still could use some work; unless it's a Shakespeare sonnet, I figure there's always room for improvement and better to have 95% of pages 95% perfect than 1% of them 100% perfect.

Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeoHeska (talk • contribs) 15:17, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your compliments. Sadly enough, if there is one skill which I lack despite my best efforts, it's article writing. Which is terrible considering that we're all volunteering at an encyclopedia. I know our policies and guidelines and I spend a lot of time helping editors in disputes but most of the time I feel like the janitor at a prestigious university. I can take pride if I leave a floor shiny but I give the most respect toward those doing the really important work. But I do try, and I'm happy that I was able to help despite my shortcomings. :) For what it's worth, I think you did great as well at the article. --  At am a  頭 23:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

ANI award

 * Thank you for the kind words, I was just reinforcing what you'd pointed out where the editor was practically daring people to block them. --  At am a  頭 20:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive829
Hi, Atama, An editor has repeatedly tried to add a comment to an archived AN/I discussion page. When reverted, he calls the edits vandalism. I'm posting this message to you because I see you keep tabs on AN/I and comment on cases there and I was just hoping to get an admin's opinion on this. I wanted someone to be aware of this edit conflict in case it doesn't die down. I reverted to the original state of the archive page and I won't revert again. If it is re-re-re-re-re-reverted, a warning might be warranted. Thanks! Liz Read! Talk! 16:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll keep this on my watchlist and try to stay on top of it. In theory, nobody should be editing the archives except for bots or people fixing mistakes or removing sensitive material (which should probably be revdeleted or oversighted anyway, not simply deleted). So this definitely isn't proper. If it happens again, I'll definitely have a talk with this editor, as I'm typing this it appears that they've stopped for now. --  At am a  頭 17:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The editor did revert again, and they are sitting at 3 reverts. I reverted back, and warned them that one more revert will lead to a block. I suggested that if they had something to add, that they can start a new discussion at ANI and could quote or copy any information from the original thread that they wanted (which is commonly done at ANI), but that they should notify the other editors being discussed if they do so. --  At am a  頭 19:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Right, I see you're Lizzy's favourite pet. Isn't it funny how she wants to remove pointed criticism of her behaviour?  Her removal of comments directed against her and others is against policy. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. As to being her "pet", I never even heard of Liz before a few days ago, to my recollection. She just happened to ask me for help because we spoke recently. As I told you previously, you're welcome to start a new thread on ANI and bring up the same issues that were in the original ANI complaint, and continue the discussion that way. It's very commonly done. What you can't do is edit archived information; it's archived for a reason. Since you've decided to ignore my warning, and revert yet again, I will block you as I said. --  At am a  頭 20:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That's rich! I don't have "pets", Barney and I'm no ones pet myself. And, I've read your addition to archived discussion and your words weren't directed at me so I don't think they were "pointed criticism" of my behavior. I've never even made an edit to Rupert Sheldrake, I've only tried to make peace on the article talk page (a futile gesture on my part). While we don't agree, Barney, you know how WP operates and I think you're too smart to try to edit an AN/I archive so I'm not sure what is up with you. It's not like you to persist like this in the face of warnings. I hope all is well with you. Liz  Read! Talk! 21:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Outing
However my observation is based 100% on reading and observing what the person has done online. I have no indication, other than what they have done in wikipeida, that my supposition may be correct. To call it "outing" makes no sense at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Let me repeat what is in our policy:
 * Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person had voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, whether any such information is accurate or not. Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm outside of their activities on Wikipedia. This applies to the personal information of both editors and non-editors. Any edit that "outs" someone must be reverted promptly, followed by a request for oversight to delete that edit from Wikipedia permanently.
 * If the editor in question did not volunteer that information, you can not make that suggestion. If the editor signed their name, declared that they were the subject of an article, or performed some other action that clearly was a disclosure of their identity, and did not afterward ask for such information to be suppressed, then you can reference it. But if you feel you have a reason to guess a person's identity, you can't do so by our policies. I'm not an oversighter, but I do have revdelete as an admin and often that's enough suppression in a small incident like this one. --  At am a  頭 00:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * What is the point of having a policy againt conflict of interest, when any attempt to say that someone has a conflict of interest will be suppressed?John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * We don't have a policy against conflicts of interest. We have a guideline with advice (for COI editors and people dealing with COI editors) that suggests how to deal with conflicts of interest. There's a major difference. In any case, I've been working with COI issues for years, and balancing COI concerns with privacy concerns is always a tightrope walk. But it's very possible to work with COI while not outing people, as the outing policy states:
 * However, if individuals have identified themselves without redacting or having it oversighted, such information can be used for discussions of conflict of interest (COI) in appropriate forums.
 * It's also appropriate to suggest a person has a COI based on their general editing behavior without having to play guessing games about their identity. Frankly, I have many of the same COI suspicions as you in this case, but again it's inappropriate to speculate about specifics on Wikipedia. --  At am a  頭 00:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

IP 66.65.150.226
Hello Atama,

a few days ago you blocked this IP because of continued original research. Almost immidiately after the block expired, the user continued with the objectionable editing behaviour. It seems as if he/she has unfortunately not learned the lesson. Kind regards --RJFF (talk) 17:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I blocked them for a week. If that doesn't work, the next one will be for a month. My hope is that they eventually get the hint that it's not allowed, and they'll stop. --  At am a  頭 18:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for your quick response on the admin notice board. I appreciate your comments. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I wish that I could have offered something more substantive. --  At am a  頭 00:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
Hi! Thank you for answering the COIN thread MobiCart in particular, and Jeremy112233 in general. I have more questions for you; I have posted them there. Cheers!

—Unforgettableid (talk) 03:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Groups
Just wanted to know if editors can become parts of groups to make changes to articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adnan1216 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello Adnan1216, yes that is allowed, in fact that is essentially what a WikiProject is. WikiProjects are groups of editors who work together to improve particular types of articles, or to perform particular kinds of tasks. Sometimes groups of editors form together to disrupt Wikipedia, and that is called tag-teaming, which is of course not allowed. But the problem in that situation is not the fact that they are acting as a team, it is what they are doing as a team which is disruptive. --  At am a  頭 16:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Further on ANI
Thanks again for your comments. I think this user has moved on so I am planning to revert back the edits in question. I will let you know if the user comes back to life. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That has all the hallmarks of a blocked sockpuppeteer, User:Generalmesse, you can expect him to spring back to life to edit war every revert and a number of editors to appear and back him up if it is. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:16, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know, Generalmesse hasn't been active since 2011 from what I can tell, and that editor was more focused on military history than In Ratio Veritas who seems to be more generalized in scope of interest (actually, none of their edits are military-related). Also, I see a lot of experimentation from this editor which supports the idea that this is a newcomer (like which looks like an attempt to figure out how to use wikiformatting to apply bold text, this isn't something I'd expect from a sockmaster with years of editing experience. --  At am a  頭  17:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Generalmesse had a thing that Italians were under appreciated, put down by an anglocentric world and did not receive due credit. Wasn't too clever at editing and never learnt syntax, may not be the same guy but the modus operandi is strikingly similar.  Wee Curry Monster talk 18:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * FYI, In Ratio Veritas is back and pushing claims people are "Italian" again . Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:55, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I left the editor a formal warning on their user talk page. I'd hoped this editor had moved on as well, but apparently not. If they persist in this behavior they will inevitably end up blocked. I prefer not to take such actions yet, despite their history of disruption. --  At am a  頭 16:07, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks Atama, I am really grateful.

Best wishes and regards.

Aftab Banoori 14:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aftabbanoori (talk • contribs)

Thanks regarding SPI
Thank you for the barnstar, I'm just trying to keep my mop from gathering dust. --  At am a  頭 18:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Excellent. While we're at it though, note my results at Sockpuppet investigations/Trueblood786 NativeForeigner Talk 18:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah... I noticed. Sigh, what a mess. I was wary about doing an unblock already, but this is too much, especially the newly-created sock. I'll get this cleaned up, thank you for your help in this, I think this will help prevent a lot of disruption. --  At am a  頭 18:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Draugr
I happened to see the section at AN/I that has now been archived, and I think that was a premature move. KnutfAen proposed the move on the article talk page on February 16 and did not advertise the discussion anywhere. He then turned up at AN/I on February 26 to request assistance with implementing the move. Consensus had not been given a chance to be established; the discussion was never even evaluated by anyone neutral. I strongly suggest reverting the move and advertising the discussion at the relevant WikiProject and to editors who have previously edited the article. I've presented a counter-argument on the article talk page, so I will not now touch it myself. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If you want to move it back, it's up to you to provide consensus. The appropriate place to begin any discussion regarding an article is the article's talk page, that is what the discussion page is there for. There is no need to advertise a discussion beyond the article's talk page unless a dispute arises that needs more eyes. KnutfAen did the exact correct thing; they proposed the move suggestion on the talk page of the article, and waited for a longer than necessary time before trying to implement the move. They then took it to a public noticeboard for assistance. Before implementing the move, I looked at the original discussion that led to it being listed at Draugr, and noted that the discussion was a consensus to merge the Draug and Draugr articles, but there was no real agreement on which of the two names to pick for the article, so this move wasn't even overturning an older consensus. The article uses "draug" as the primary term throughout the body, only using the term "draugr" once (explained as an alternative name in the lead, given only as much attention as draugar, dreygur, draugen, or aptrganga) aside from a couple of mentions in the "Popular Culture" section. It looked like a common-sense move to rename the article. So again, if you want it moved back, start a discussion on the talk page. --  At am a  頭 16:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe you've failed to notice this edit by the user requesting the move, which replaces the Old Norse form (draugr, plural draugar) with draug (given an English plural draugs) throughout the article. What happened was: a user proposed a move, and failed to advertise the discussion. After minimal participation and two weeks, the same user declared the move discussion over and went to AN/I requesting it be implemented. This is a (presumably unintended) end run around the consensus process, and the same user's editing the article to reflect his preferred form of the word should not weigh in the decision. I don't believe a new discussion to change consensus is required here; the move should be reverted as based on a misunderstanding, consensus had not been reached for it. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I did miss that. I don't believe that the article needs to be moved back, again as I stated before there was no end run around the consensus process. The move request should probably have been done at Requested Moves, but there was no indication that the move would be controversial so that wasn't a necessity. Again, I see no prior consensus that the Old Norse form was preferred. There should be no harm in leaving it as-is until the conclusion of a discussion, and I'm definitely not going to go through the trouble to move it again (without consensus) just to possibly have it moved back again to Draug (if consensus ends up preferring that term). You can continue the discussion that was already begun at the article talk page (I see you have at least one other editor agreeing with you) and if you want to advertise it to gather a firm consensus, you can do so via RfC. Or, start up a discussion at Requested Moves which is more formal. I have no personal objection to the move, but it makes no sense to move it yet again before any discussion takes place, because the move is certainly controversial (KnutfAen wants it at Draug while others disagree). --  At am a  頭 18:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your reading of how policy applies here - KnutfAen proposed a controversial move, the location of the merged article at Draugr can and should be taken as prior consensus. It will involve a lot more fuss, move-wise, if it has to be re-moved rather than simply reverted, and the run to AN/I was, in my view, an end run around consensus formation (although I'll say again, perhaps inadvertent): there was no "incident" except impatience to have their viewpoint implemented. However I see it implied at Requested move that move discussions usually only run for 7 days with possible relisting, like AfDs; I had thought they ran for a month like merger discussions, and that shorter expected duration makes the editor's impatience more understandable. Since you decline to revert the move, I'll reopen discussion and advertise it as the editor should in my view have done. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That's the problem. There is no "revert" on a move, it has to be re-moved. It's not like reverting to an old revision of an article, it will require deleting both Draugr and Talk:Draugr, performing a move, making sure everything looks right, etc. And again, the original move as done was not controversial because there was no objection to it at the time, but moving it back is controversial because there is a dispute. And just to reassure you, I'm not making a determination which is the "correct" name for the article (nor did I when I moved it before), it doesn't matter much to me whether there is an "r" at the end of the name or not. If it looks like you've established an informal consensus on the talk page of the article you can leave me a message and if it looks to me like there's a consensus I'll move it again, I have no problem with that. If you also need help mediating the dispute, I'd be happy to help there too, just let me know. --  At am a  頭 19:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I realize the technical issues and have the tools to deal with them, but since you are speaking of consensus - I believe in error - the new discussion is now rolling. (And I did the notifying I believe should have originally been done; I hope neutrally.) We've had some off-wiki canvassing by KnutfAen; you may want to keep an eye on the discussion in light of that. I have welcomed the two users concerned and FWIW see no need for a sockpuppet investigation as one participant has suggested. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I am indeed keeping an eye on things, and as I said before as an impartial observer I'm happy to implement whatever the result of the discussion is. So far everything you've done looks proper and I'll intervene if things get out of hand. I also agree that an SPI probably isn't needed, by KnutfAen's own words there is probable canvassing and/or meatpuppetry going on here, but the SPI is filed anyway (I'm watching that SPI too). I'm definitely going to have a talk with KnutfAen about this. Thanks for keeping me in the loop on this. --  At am a  頭 18:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Stephanie Cholensky
Hello, I am contacting you regarding the deletion of the page: Stephanie Cholensky, the notability reason being that she is the co-chair of a national political party (Socialist Party USA). I also put in a request for undeletion, I wasn't sure at the time how to contact you directly. Could you elaborate on the reason for deletion? Thanks!

-RS Szepasszony (talk) 17:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The deletion was a proposed deletion. The way a proposed deletion process works is this... An editor determines that an article doesn't meet our inclusion criteria, and leaves a tag on the article which indicates their concern and their desire for deletion. The tag stays on the article for 7 days, in which time anyone can object to the deletion for any reason and remove the tag, which makes any deletion of the article controversial, and makes the article ineligible for proposed deletion (either at that time or any later date). If, after 7 days, nobody objects to the proposed deletion, then an administrator will evaluate the article and make sure that nobody has yet objected to deletion and check to see if the proposed deletion rationale seems credible. If so, then the article is deleted. The article can be restored upon request by anyone.


 * In this particular case, the claim was that the article subject lacks notability. Notability on Wikipedia is commonly determined by finding significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. I saw that such coverage was not established in the article, and when I looked online for a quick check I didn't find anything either. So I deleted the article.


 * Now that you've requested that the article be restored, I'll do so, it's as simple as that! Just note that the same concerns that led to its proposed deletion will be unaddressed, and it's very possible that the article will be subject to a deletion discussion, so my suggestion is to try to find more sources giving coverage of the subject. Good sources include major newspapers, magazines, or books, and significant coverage would include an entire article or any other significant portion of text covering her, not just a passing mention. --  At am a  頭 18:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Help on BLP issue please
Hi, I saw that you are editing recently and hope you would have a look at Talk:Murry_Salby. It's to add non-contentious content onto the short article, which everyone agrees is weighted too heavily with negative content. Any help appreciated. Sportfan5000 (talk) 20:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I see the edit request, I see that nobody else has commented on it either though. I'm not comfortable stepping into this dispute and inserting information unilaterally, however innocuous it may appear, but I'll ask on the talk page and see if anyone objects. --  At am a  頭 22:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It's hard not to be jaded here … but it seems people are much more invested in parsing scandal than doing the most basic first steps. Each article grows a bit differently I guess! Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for doing the first part. I'm hoping you'll look again at completing the request. All the boiling over and sniping concerns other facets of what potentially, and might be reported, and has nothing to do with the edit request. Everyone agrees that the mostly negative tone has to be fixed, yet seem reluctant to do anything but argue about other more controversial potential aspects. Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not my place to honor the second request. I'm not a "superuser" or anything, and it would be abuse of my tools to make a decision in favor on one editor's proposed change to edit the article when there are so many other editors debating. Keep in mind that some of those editors are also administrators (Drmies, MastCell, TenOfAllTrades), and if taking unilateral action to use the tools to implement one person's idea of the proper way to edit the article was okay, one of them would have done so. --  At am a  頭 21:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Belated thanks

 * You're welcome, I was just speaking my mind honestly as best as I could there. --  At am a  頭 21:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Abuse response
I see you are closing all the open cases at WP:Abuse response. Has there been some discussion about winding up this project? and if so would you please provide a link.  Spinning Spark  02:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 *  Spinning Spark , the discussion occurred at Administrators' noticeboard and the open cases were from 2012. The project itself was marked inactive in fall 2013 via a discussion on WP:AN.  Liz  Read! Talk! 02:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That's the discussion about winding up old cases because the project is closed, but it is not the discussion which decided to close the project. Who decided the project was no longer useful?  Spinning  Spark  04:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Archive256 --  At am a  頭 04:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That's really a pity; it means we have nowhere else to go with troublesome IPs, other than ever longer blocks.  But if the ISPs are mostly ignoring us then there is no point wasting anyone's time over it.  Spinning  Spark  02:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 *  Spinning Spark , I brought it to AN with the hopes of drafting more people work on cases. But a) none of the volunteers for the project were still around (they didn't respond to my talk page messages) and b) the editors who recalled the process thought writing to ISPs wasn't a very productive activity in terms of results.  Liz  Read! Talk! 03:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Cheley Colorado Camps
Back in 2008 you PRODded this, and it was deleted. (Actually, you PROD2-ed it, but the original PRODder is not very active currently). Undeletion has been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to consider AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 17:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, wow that's from over 4 years ago! If someone wants to take a crack at it to expand it and show notability, more power to them. I appreciate the notification. --  At am a  頭 17:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Recently deleted article
You recently deleted an article called Kamie Jimmie King due to its lack of notability and the likelihood that it was an autobiography. I just thought that you would be interested to know that the author, User:Kamie256, (who has now created a user page containing the same material as the article), almost instantly recreated it. G S Palmer (talk) 01:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I deleted it, then salted it so that it couldn't be recreated by a non-autoconfirmed editor. Just a note, G4 is only for pages deleted through a discussion (like AfD) and not CSDs, but I deleted it per A7, the same criterion as last time. --  At am a  頭 01:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk:The Diversity Paradox
Hi Atama, The Diversity Paradox has been dePRODed or restored. Could you please restore its talk page, too? Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 14:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I suppose I can, though if I do so then the article page history should also be restored. This isn't normal process, if an article deleted by PROD is recreated, typically we just treat it as a new article with the same name as the previous one. Nothing at WP:PROD suggesting restoring anything to a page (or its associated talk page) when someone recreates it, it only suggests restoring a page if a request is made at WP:REFUND. I typically restore a deleted PROD on request, no questions asked, but this is a different situation because there is an article there.


 * What I'm going to do is this... I'll restore the article's history, and the talk page. I can do so by my own judgment, as suggested by the PROD policy, An administrator may decide on their own to restore an article that has been deleted after a proposed deletion without having to make the request at Requests for undeletion. However, I will do so because having the entire history available will be of more value at AfD, which I intend to file shortly. There were compelling arguments for deletion on the talk page of the article prior to its PROD deletion and I think having the full article history available to regular editors will be of assistance in the discussion. --  At am a  頭 15:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Agreed, thank you. The new version is, in my reading of it, a thinly veiled promotion of one particular author's work. Many scholars have worked in the area, but a reader would not know this from the article. Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 15:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That's more-or-less what I'm basing my deletion discussion propoal on. If the article is kept, it should be changed to reflect a more balanced viewpoint. Just FYI, if you plan to rewrite or correct it yourself, or with the assistance of others who want to correct the article, I'll hold off on any AfD. Just let me know. --  At am a  頭 16:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. No, I'm not planning to rewrite it; in my view it is flawed from the start. I would be happy to comment on the AfD. Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 18:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Once I get it started, you'll be one of the editors I notify (including of course the article creator and other significant contributors). --  At am a  頭 18:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thank you, that means a lot coming from you. --  At am a  頭 21:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jean-Roger Milo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Germinal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, you wascally wobot! --  At am a  頭 15:46, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Yelp Inc.
Although I'm a bit on the opposite side of the fence with you on this particular RfC I am enjoying your perspective. It's one that I usually profess myself and am glad to know the sentiment exists amongst a number of editors. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 19:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --  At am a  頭 20:12, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for writing to me.
Hi. You wrote to me here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zedzem

Thank you for writing to me. As soon as I contacted admins, Kazemita1 did it too. I wanted help to stop edit wars. The article have been on Wikipedia for almost a year, with everyone agreeing with it. Suddenly Kazemita1 comes one day and reverts the change - without discussing it, despite it having sources and consensus. You say: "Please note that vandalism is defined on Wikipedia as a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia" which is exactly what I thought, that Kazemita1 arrived and started reverting changes that had been made a year ago. Thus I saw it as vandalism but as I know now it might not be the same definition. I was hoping Kazemita1 would discuss this but he decided to revert it.

It is also obvious that since he contacted you, he was used (probably) a proxy to continue editing the page. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_Friday_%281978%29&action=history

What do you recommend I do now? I have made a post in the discussion page for Kazemita1 to discuss this, but it seems like he is not interested in discussion. I must also mention that it is not uncommon for those in the Islamic Republic to seek out changes like this and quickly revert.

EDIT: Sorry. But I can not find the report here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI#Personal_attack

EDIT2: Sorry for another edit. But I thought it was vandalism when Kazemita1 (and now this unknown user) completely removed a whole paragraph with 5-6 sources. Zedzem (talk) 17:06, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * My page is here for discussion, so edit all you want here, it doesn't bother me. :)


 * You can't see the report at WP:ANI any longer because any thread started there is automatically archived if nobody adds a post to it for a couple of days. The last post to that thread was on March 14, when I had moved it there from WP:AN (the original place where Kazemita1 had posted it to) and on March 17th the archive system Cluebot III moved it here, to the archives. Just a warning, feel free to read the message there in the archive, but don't reply to it there; the archives are for old discussions and aren't a place to continue or start discussions. If you do want to discuss the matter on the noticeboard you can create a new thread, and you can even copy information from the old thread in the archive (including a copy-and-paste of what Kazemita1 and/or myself said) though you should make it clear that you've revived old information or copied old information to avoid confusing any readers on that page.


 * As for calling things vandalism, as I said to you on your talk page we have a fairly narrow definition of the term, and to call someone a vandal is one of the strongest claims you can make on Wikipedia, because you're calling into question the entire reason why they are participating in the project. So be very cautious when you use the term. Here are a few tips... Vandalism can include removing information (especially sourced information) but often removing information is an improvement if the information doesn't belong. When a user includes an edit summary that explains what they are doing (which Kazemita1 and the IP have both done) then there is little-to-no chance that the edit is vandalism, because the editor is taking the time to explain how their edit is an attempt to improve the article. Therefore, the edit summary you made during of the IP that you did today, which accuses the IP of vandalism, is again improper (and is technically another personal attack). So again, be cautious about using that term, if you continue to use it to label editors you're disputing with (especially at that page) you are likely to be blocked.


 * You've claimed that the IP (70.49.72.34) and Kazemita1 are the same person. I disagree. I've done a lot of "detective" work in identifying and sanctioning sockpuppet editors by patrolling the sockpuppet investigations page, and I've learned a few tricks about how to figure out if two accounts are the same person. One strong indicator is that the two accounts will edit the same areas. When you look at the contributions from 70.49.72.34 and Kazemita1, you'll see that other than the one edit that the IP made to the Black Friday article on the 14th of March there is no overlap between the two. Kazemita1 edits a lot of Iran-related articles and the rare edit to a very technical computer-related article (like Guardian Analytics or IEEE 802.11ah). The IP on the other hand tends to edit video game articles extensively, and occasionally edits an article related to American politics or pop culture. Even their areas of interest have no overlap. As to why the IP may have reverted you on that page at that time, you'll notice that the edit was made at 21:46 on March 14 (UTC) which was a few hours after Kazemita1 made the request on the administrators' noticeboard at 18:40 on March 14 (UTC). If the IP saw the noticeboard post, that may have prompted them to visit the page and revert you. I'll also note that the IP address geolocates to the city of Montreal in Quebec, Canada. You claim that Kazemita1 is in the Islamic Republic, and Kazemita1 claims to live in the USA.


 * And that brings me to another point. By what basis do you claim that Kazemita1 lives in Iran? Their interests certainly seem tangentially related to Iran. Perhaps they are ethnically Iranian, or are from there, because they indicate on their user page that Persian is their native language. But they claim to live in the USA, and unless they have made a statement otherwise, you should assume that they are telling the truth about that. And why should it matter anyway? You've also stated that "it is not uncommon for those in the Islamic Republic to seek out changes like this and quickly revert"; how did you draw that conclusion? You're indicating a strong anti-Iranian bias in your actions, which is antithetical to the culture of Wikipedia, where everyone is meant to collaborate. If you do not wish to deal with Iranian people, you should probably not be participating in Wikipedia at all (since this site is all-inclusive) and you most definitely should stay away from any page that is related to the country of Iran or its people, or you are definitely going to run into conflict.


 * Lastly, I will point out that your statement above that "he is not interested in discussion" is demonstrably false. When you created the section at the talk page of the article, Kazemita1 replied to you a day later. When you posted again today, they replied to you a half hour later. I'll warn you that the changes you want to implement at that page are being disputed so they require discussion per WP:BRD to avoid continuing an edit war. If you persist in edit-warring, you could be blocked for that behavior in addition to the personal attacks you've made. If you cannot come to an agreement with Kazemita1, you can seek a third opinion to weigh in. If you want, I can also mediate and try to work out a compromise between the two of you (although it is voluntary and unbinding) but I have no interest in taking a side either way and would prefer to remain impartial at that page. --  At am a  頭 18:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hey. Very cool. Thanks for the detailed response.


 * I am sorry for calling out vandalism, now that I have understood how it is. I had always thought that "big changes" require discussion before hand and I was quite shocked that after almost a year somebody came and just randomly deleted whole paragraphs, without mentioning why in the talk page.


 * I was not really 100 % sure if it was the same person or not. I was really weird though that this IP appeared just as soon as Kazemita1 appeared and just as soon as Kazemita1 reported me to admins. I thought that it was an attempt to get me into a edit war without directly involving his username. Of course I have no proof!


 * I mean that the government of Islamic Republic actively participates in changing information, in social media etc. Definitely not all Iranians!


 * Now I have a question. Shouldn't Kazemita come with some evidence of what he believes, and how the sources in article are wrong, instead of deleting whole paragraphs? I understand if my changes can be seen as disputed, but I also see his changes as disputed though (which is obvious, because as we can see now there are two stories to this. Who will decide which one should be there?) Zedzem (talk) 20:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You raise a very good question. Let me summarize as best as I can from what I've derived from the discussion page and the history of the article.


 * Initially, in November 2010, the editor Javidshahanshah proposed adding a section to the article. Another editor, SimonP, rejected the addition of the information, and suggested that the sources used to support the information could not be considered reliable. They debated briefly, but came to no consensus. Then, in February of 2011, Javidshahanshah made the decision to be bold and added the information despite the protests of SimonP. SimonP reverted the addition, again claiming that the sources were not sufficient. This sparked another brief debate on the discussion page, which again came to no consensus, but when Javidshahanshah re-inserted the information SimonP did not revert.


 * Later that month, a new editor, Tec15, removed the section, calling the claims in it "fringe conspiracy theories". In May of 2011, Javidshahanshah restored it. An IP removed it later that month, and Javidshahanshah again restored it. And so this pattern continued over the next few years, with various people removing the section, claiming that it was badly-sourced, made-up, and represented fringe conspiracy theories, while others restored it, claiming that it was legitimate. As far as discussion goes, there was very little that I can see, aside from an IP in November of 2011 claiming that someone needs to "fix" the article (followed shortly by the editor Pathofthewarrior removing the section, which shows that the IP was objecting to the section) and the editor Jemiljan in May of 2012 supporting SimonP's opinion and also suggesting that the section represented a conspiracy theory. Not until yourself and Kazemita1 commented on the talk page this year was there any other discussion on that article.


 * Multiple people on the discussion page objected to its inclusion with only a single editor advocating for it. In addition, the inclusion of this section has been disputed since it was first added to the article by more than a half a dozen unique editors who removed it themselves from the aritcle. Therefore, I don't see why Kazemita1 had any reason to give further evidence to remove a section that was boldly added despite numerous people disputing its addition, and where there was never consensus established to add it in the first place.


 * Does that mean that the section cannot be in the article? No it doesn't. While there is no consensus to have it in the article, neither do I see a consensus to keep it out of the article. And that is why the discussion has to take place that comes to some sort of consensus. I doubt that it will be settled between Kazemita1 and yourself alone. I'm sure you will need at least a third person offering another opinion, and you may need more. There is a noticeboard called the dispute resolution noticeboard that is designed to help settle disputes exactly like the one you are having right now with Kazemita1. There is also a reliable sources noticeboard that can be consulted to determine the validity of the references used to support the section in question. Also, since multiple editors have claimed that the information in that section is a fringe theory, you may want to consult the fringe theory noticeboard to eliminate (or confirm) that suggestion.


 * Coming to a consensus isn't easy. There often aren't clear "right" or "wrong" answers to a dispute like this one. But you can see the results of not having consensus... An argument about one section of an article that has lasted for more than three and a half years, involving a number of people. And the answer isn't always a "yes" or "no" either. Perhaps the article can mention the theory discussed in "recent reports" without stating it as fact (for example, the text as it stands says "recent reports have shown that the reporting of media and opposition was incorrect" which is a pretty bold statement, and possibly could be tempered as saying "some have suggested that the reporting of media and opposition was incorrect"). Perhaps even that much can't be supported by sources though. Proper, civil discussion should settle such matters.


 * And that is why, again, you really need to stop making accusations about the Islamic Republic, and other such accusations. Calling someone a "vandal" because they disagree with you is definitely bad, but if you're no longer doing that you're off to a good start. You also should not suggest that other people are operatives of Iran, because all that does is discredit any suggestion you make by distracting people from any legitimate arguments you may have. Don't also assume that people who disagree with you are in collusion, I see many people, both editing from IPs and editing from accounts, who have participated in this argument from both sides and I have no reason to think that either side is completely alone (either yourself or Kazemita1). Just please keep these in mind as you proceed with this.


 * Another suggestion for you... To avoid a persistent edit war, you might want to copy the disputed section of the article to the talk page, and if somebody removes it from the main page the article itself, don't restore it. That way you have the best of both worlds... You have the text from the section available for people to look at, and you don't have to risk being blocked for edit-warring (which is a real possibility, for either of you). If you do decide to do this, make sure to add this template beneath the section:




 * Using the reflist template will allow the references to show up. I know you want the section to be in the article, but both Kazemita1 and yourself can end up blocked by fighting back and forth over the section on the article page, and for the edit war to stop at least one side needs to stop reverting. --  At am a  頭 21:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=600332872 your edit] to List of Faroese football transfers, winter 2008–09 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Meh, it's marked for PROD anyway. --  At am a  頭 17:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Vivint Innovation Center
It looks like you just deleted the Vivint Innovation Center article. I had recommended on the talk page that the content be moved to the main Vivint article before deletion. I probably did not handle that properly, but is there a way to do that now? Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 17:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there is. I can access the information that was deleted. I'll add the info to a subpage of your user page, and you can mine whatever info you want to use at Vivint. When you're done, let me know, and I'll delete that subpage of yours. --  At am a  頭 17:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. Bahooka (talk) 17:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It's done, you can find all of the info at User:Bahooka/Vivint Innovation Center. The only info I didn't include were category templates, as that would add the subpage to those categories (which could be confusing), plus I doubt those templates would you do much good. All of the main content and references are intact. Again, let me know when you're done and I'll be happy to delete that page for you. --  At am a  頭 18:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * All done. You can remove that subpage.  Thank you for your help. Bahooka (talk) 18:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow, you work fast! I deleted the page. Glad to help. --  At am a  頭 18:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

NERA Economic Consulting
Hi Atama, You recently deleted an article on the firm NERA Economic Consulting after it was marked for PROD. It is a notable global consulting firm. I think a competitor might have thought it funny to propose its deletion. Could you please restore this? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.156.160.129 (talk) 02:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Your suspicions about a "competitor" thinking it was "funny" to propose it for deletion are unfounded. The person who proposed it for deletion is a long-standing member of the community, and an experienced administrator, not likely to delete the article because he was associated with or paid by a competitor. The talk page of the article demonstrates concerns about the notability of this company going back for 8 years from various persons. I myself made searches for coverage of this company in reliable sources before deciding to delete it, and while I found countless sources referencing economic reports generated by NERA in major stories, I saw nothing significant that covered NERA itself. That is why I made the decision to delete, it certainly wasn't a joke.


 * I'm restoring the article, since anything deleted through proposed deletion must be uncontroversial, and such pages can be restored after the fact by any simple request.


 * As it is now, it's very possible the article will be deleted again, this time through our articles for deletion discussion process rather than our simple proposed deletion process. Until someone finds better evidence of notability for the company than what is currently present at the article in its current form (which only uses a broken web link and a link to the company's own site as references) its probably unlikely to survive the process. In that case it will take more than a request to have the article restored. --  At am a  頭 17:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Help, please?
There is an incident that I have worked up a posting for. It is 2,000 words long and has over 70 diffs, although I have cot/cob'd the majority of it. Should I post it or is it too long?

I ask you because I think you will get pinged if I post it, as your name is in it in a Template:User (along with five other editors). I am also unsure if I have to? should? notify other editors if I am User| templating their name, quoting them, linking to an edit they made or to their talk page. Any guidance you can give me would be appreciated. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 10:59, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Letting you know
FYI, I mentioned you in my complaint about an editor in the Administrator Noticeboard
 * Thank you for letting me know. --  At am a  頭 15:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Message originally left on my user page
i am saying at every stage i do not know how to make the article is it possible that an editor can create the article? marty smith

Three editors helped
Three editors helped with the corrections to Super-teams but more attacked me personally while I was in the process of making requested edits. It is the personal attacks that I object to. . . not making corrections. Stmullin (talk) 21:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I can understand that. Can you be more specific about the attacks? If these were explicit personal attacks those are not allowed, but if they were criticisms about your behavior then that is not the same as an attack. I'd like to know more about these, to either avoid misunderstandings or possibly to warn people against making personal insults against you. --  At am a  頭 21:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Gaijin42 and Nil Einne attacked my character rather make an effort to correctly define the problem. The problem was that I did not do a block quote correctly, not that I would put Wikipedia in jeopardy. I thought that I had done the quote correctly and since I could no longer view the article after deletion. . . I was not aware of the indent problem until Writ Keeper pointed out that the indentation did not appear on the original article. The constant threats and bombarding of templates made the problem worse not better.Stmullin (talk) 21:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Would you please make Gaijin42 go away? he is still hounding me about this.Stmullin (talk) 22:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The article was turned into a redirect, it wasn't deleted, so the history is available to anyone who wants to view it. The history can be viewed here, and you can also get to it by going to Super-team, then look at the top of the High-performance teams article (right under the title) where it says (Redirected from Super-team) and click on the Super-team link there, it will take you to the redirect page where you can click on the "history" link. That's just a tip to get to a redirect page without being redirected.


 * But I'm still trying to figure out where the attacks occurred... Do you know how to do diffs? Help:Diff shows you how to make a diff for a page so you can make a permanent link to a person's edit (which will persist even after that edit is deleted, or archived, or otherwise changed) and will show exactly how and where a person made an edit. I see that Gaijin42 gave a on your talk page, which you replied by saying, "I have filed for arbitration against you . . . you are out of control." I'll say that the warning was correct... You aren't allowed to remove speedy deletion tags for a page you created yourself and doing so after being warned can be considered disruptive. So your response seemed to be unwarranted there.


 * If you are talking about the discussion at the administrators' incident noticeboard, I'm trying to understand what is an attack there. Please indicate what Gaijin42 and Nil Einne said that you consider to be a personal attack against you, because I'm not seeing it.


 * Now, what I see is that what you did, while still a copyright violation, was not intentional. You were following the APA style which is a common and widely-respected writing style for academics. But our copyright policy has to account for situations not necessarily covered by that style, and so you're not necessarily safe in following it, what's important is what Wikipedia policy suggests you do. And please forgive the other editors for not suggesting that a blockquote would be satisfactory; they didn't realize at the time that it was a quote so couldn't have made the suggestion at the time. I think that you're making your best efforts here, but please understand that the writing conventions you might have learned elsewhere may conflict with what Wikipedia has written in its guidelines and policies, and even if it's considered best practices elsewhere everyone has to follow what has been established here by community consensus (along with what has been mandated by the Wikimedia Foundation). Other editors aren't "wrong" because they contradict what you've learned elsewhere, and this is especially true when you're working with editors who have been here many years (even longer than myself). --  At am a  頭 22:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I do not know how to do diffs and I hope I never need to do that again. I write articles and have written many articles successfully in the past. I thought that I had indented the passage in question . . . I should have used a blockquote . . . I know that now but the predators will not cease and desist . . . honestly,Gaijin42, is completely out of control. I can correct my mistakes once I understand the error but Gaijin42 was clueless . . . please stop Gaijin42 from harassing people. The other editor worked with me to find a solution but Gaijin42 just attacked repeatedly and Nil Einne enabled him.Stmullin (talk) 22:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I looked through your editing history, and yes you've made some good article contributions (at least to me, I'm honestly not great at it, most of my contributions here are in other, arguably less-important areas). But you need to stop overreacting here. Please understand that Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and you're going to have to work with other editors. Sometimes they are going to disagree with you, and you can't take disagreements as attacks. This is not a place where you can write an article and be done; people are going to change your article, they may object to what you wrote and how you wrote it, and they may even want to delete what you wrote. In order to successfully manage the conflicts that will inevitably come up, you must do two things (and neither of those things is to ask people to leave you alone or tell them that they're flat-out "wrong" without explanation). You need to be able to treat other editors with civility to avoid misunderstandings and to avoid escalating a simple disagreement into a conduct dispute, and you need to be able to defend your actions with a combination of common sense and knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. All of that is essential to being able to participate constructively on Wikipedia. I'd like to help you avoid running into conflict because you look to have a good background in writing and so you can be a big benefit to the project here, but that needs to be combined with an understanding of Wikipedia culture and learning the ropes, and that will only come with experience, patience, and the ability to occasionally accept constructive criticism. --  At am a  頭 23:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that my willingness to make repeated revisions over a 2 year span writing for Wikipedia does shows acceptance of constructive criticism. I think that my communications with you, Writ Keeper, and Hell in a Bucket resulted in a positive outcome and was a collaborative effort. Dealing with loose cannons like KURU and Gaijin42 was neither constructive or helpful and at times was slanderous. Nil Einne was just as clueless as KURU and Gaijin42. I do not believe that those three are effective administrators. . . they make problems worse not better. Stmullin (talk) 23:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You're not a hopeless case, no, and that is why I'm taking the time to try to give you a little guidance here. But I'll assure you, that neither Kuru nor Gaijin42 are loose cannons, nor was Nil Einne. They may not have tried to spend so much one-on-one time with you as I have, but the actions they all have done were correct, and none of it was slanderous (and be careful about words like "slander" or "libel", phrases that even approach legal threats are taken very seriously here). Unfortunately, the contributions you've made for the past couple of years have been done without a proper understanding of Wikipedia's policy on copyrights, and as a result people are going to have to go through all of your articles to check for mistakes you've made in that regard. None of that it is in any way an attack on you, rather it's an attempt to protect both this project and anyone who mirrors or otherwise reuses information written on this project. There is already a discussion on the administrators' incidents noticeboard regarding your contribution, and there will likely be a copyright investigation begun as a result. You are likely going to receive a lot more corrections as to what you've written, so I urge you to please take these as attempts to help you follow policy as you make further contributions, and not as attempts to personally attack you or denigrate your contributions here. --  At am a  頭 00:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I've worked with Diannaa before on the Stewart Hase image so I am not at all offended. She found 2 Errors that were mine and I was able to correct one of those errors but haven't a clue about paraphrasing the information on Triangle Town Center (see my talk page). . . trivia is trivia, how do I convey the Triangle Town Center information and have it make sense? Stmullin (talk) 02:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The Triangle Town Center article is now corrected. I deleted most of the passage which sounded very commercial. Stmullin (talk) 03:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That's all awesome, I'm glad to hear it. I'll try to help if you have any more questions or problems. --  At am a  頭 03:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Qualcomm sales/marketing exec articles
I noticed that you were active on the Talk page of the BLP policy and so thought you might be the right person to bring up a couple articles to. I have a COI with Qualcomm and am sort of taking an inventory of about 20+ Qualcomm-related articles. It's not exactly within my "scope of work" but I found two articles about sales/marketing executives that I thought were good CSD/AFD candidates. There is a promotional article on Jim Cathey that only cites brief mentions, quotes, primary sources, etc. And there is a more critical one on Anand Chandrasekher that I think qualifies for WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE-type of thing as a barely-known, non-public figure - his primary claim to notability appears to be a comment he made about Apple that resulted in a demotion (currently described in a "Public relations disaster" section). I don't think I am allowed to nominate them for AfD myself, so I would defer to your judgement on the matter. CorporateM (Talk) 08:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice, I'll look them over and come up with a plan for both of them. --  At am a  頭 17:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

AfD games
Hi. I wonder if you could please take a look at Articles for deletion/Mircea Popescu. My first concern was that Jordanee155 is a sockpuppet of article creator Altus mare, but now I'm really worried about the integrity of the process thanks to this comment: "Could use votes". If you could please somehow intervene to make sure the discussion is untainted by canvassing, I would appreciate that. - Biruitorul Talk 13:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I added SPA tags to the two editors, because both seemed to show up to deal specifically with that article and the AfD (they both have a little bit of activity outside of the AfD, but not much). It's not a good idea to flat-out accuse someone of sockpuppetry when you just suspect that they may be a sockpuppet; it just inflames the situation and makes any arguments you make against the editor(s) appear to be vindictive rather than simply trying to appeal to policies and guidelines in the deletion discussion. When editors come in just to participate in an AfD (whether they were recruited, or are sockpuppets, or meatpuppets) your best bet is to label them as SPAs and then let the strength of your arguments win out over the weakness of theirs, since AfD isn't a vote. --  At am a  頭 15:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

practice
Atama, everyone makes errors. i believe i wrote to atom more than once

thank you marty — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marty h smith (talk • contribs) 19:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You're doing pretty good, just remember to add ~ (four tilde ~ key strokes) at the end of your message, so that your message is signed. Sometimes your signature is automatically added (an automatic process that we call a "bot" added the signature this time) but often it isn't, and it helps avoid confusion. For example, if you wrote a message, and then someone wrote a message right after you and signed it, it would look like that person was signing both messages and others may assume that one person said both things, not two people. So just keep that in mind. I put some links on your user talk page in my "welcome" message that should give you some tips. I know it might be a lot of reading but even adding something to Wikipedia that seems obviously important to you could meet opposition from other people, and the better you're able to communicate and be familiar with Wikipedia in general, the better equipped you will be to respond to that opposition. --  At am a  頭 19:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

ok i am going to the disarmament page talk to see if i can get my additions accepted. thank you for your guidance.

Marty h smith (talk) 15:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You're welcome Marty. --  At am a  頭 15:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Spirit of Metal webzine
Could you please restore the Spirit of Metal webzine page? This seems to be an unlikely mistake regarding the fact that the page itself had References, External links but no Categories which I've planned to put on the Page.
 * I have restored the page, because proposed deletions can be restored on any request. However, please note that the article has exactly zero indications of notability, there are no reliable sources showing significant coverage. Because of this, the article is unlikely to survive for long. Unless you can find such coverage, I will likely bring the article to articles for deletion to request deletion. Before I deleted it through proposed deletion, I did a search myself for such coverage and found none. Just to be sure, I did another search, and still found none. --  At am a  頭 21:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much for restoring the Page! <3 I've just finished the Categories for the page, I want you to be the coach of this once again and decide if there's any notability! <3

A barnstar for you!
Thank you, you are way too kind Drmies. --  At am a  頭 00:32, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

New article
There is a new article, Ivan Earl Clarin that should probably be deleted. I tagged it under CSD A7 and the author removed my tag. Thanks the reedman (talk) 05:08, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you were correct, because it's now gone. I can't take the credit though. --  At am a  頭 15:10, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Great Advice !
Atama,

That was great advice you gave to Hell in a Bucket! Thanks, I'll remember that advice too when I get frustrated! Thank you ! KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh  10:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk page of deleted article.
The article was deleted a while ago but the talk page still remain. Its Talk:Shocantelle Brown. thanks the reedman (talk) 02:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The talk page of the article you brought up before is gone, it was deleted at the same time as the main article. Shocantelle Brown is a totally different article. NawlinWiki already deleted that talk page too though. --  At am a  頭 03:22, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Mrm7171
Hi Atama: You might recall that you told Mrm7171 the following.

"But I'll give you a chance, probably one more chance than you merit at this point, but I'll offer it anyway. Would you agree to leave these editors alone? To stop undoing their edits, removing their references, bringing them up on noticeboards, challenging them on user and article talk pages? Will you do something useful for the encyclopedia? --  At am a  頭 15:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)"

Mrm7171 is not exactly following your advice to leave me alone. They undid a change I made on a couple of pages, e.g., the musculoskeletal disorder (MSD) page, then I deleted with an explantion of why, and they deleted again, and now I'm getting caught up in an argument about whether or not I/O psychology is relevant to MSDs.. I'd be thankful for your thoughts on this. Thanks. Psyc12 (talk) 03:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Atama. I have edited a number of important articles today, and continued to be useful to the encyclopedia. I have stayed away from psyc12 in doing so. I have not removed their edits (and rarely do) or brought them up on noticeboards. I have also not revisited any of the occupational health psychology articles as agreed. Work psychology was added to the muscoskeletal disorder article 2 weeks ago and rightly so. Psyc12 then deleted its inclusion. Today I engaged in what can only be seen as civil discussion with psyc12. Psyc12 asked for a reliable source. I provided one. They then report me here to you? Please see Talk:Musculoskeletal disorder


 * I also did not revert again today, even though psyc12 again deleted my good faith edit, so not to edit war, and we could just work it out. Work and organizational psychology is a major part of psychology internationally. I am in no way, hounding psyc12 either, and resent the insinuation, but it appears psyc12 just wants readers to believe occupational health psychology is the only area of psychology to muscoskeletal disorders in the workplace? It is not. And readers deserve the best, most neutral encyclopedic articles possible. Perhaps psyc12 could instead just work with me on the odd articles where there is some overlap, in the name of civil editing? Why can't we include both work psychology and occupational health psychology?Mrm7171 (talk) 04:19, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This is what you wrote to psyc12 regarding hypocrisy, and I think is more than relevant here. It is the only issue it seems that psyc12 is still complaining to you about, instead of just working it out, and moving on? Please see: Mrm7171 (talk) 04:45, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm going to try a compromise here. I'm going to step in as a non-administrator here. As a regular reader and editor, I'm confused as to why OHP should be linked to, but not I/O. It seems to me that neither is directly related to musculoskeletal disorders, because neither field is involved in treating physical injuries. However, both fields are involved with managing occupational stress (in fact, each article has a section on it) and because occupational stress is a factor in people suffering from musculoskeletal disorders at the workplace, both articles are tangentially related.


 * Please help me understand how OHP is more relevant and deserves inclusion while the other doesn't. While I'm not an expert in any way, I can still intervene using common sense and through an attempt to receive consensus so that there doesn't need to be the added distraction of your participation in the discussion (for now). That way you don't have to interact with Psyc12. --  At am a  頭  15:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * OHP is a field concerned specifically with workplace health and safety, and so it is more relevant to topics having to do with physical health than is I/O, which is more concerned with psychological well-being. I can provide more explanation, but maybe it is best to use references. As I put on the talk page, I checked an I/O psychology handbook, and 7 textbooks and none mentioned MSDs in the index. An I/O encyclopedia did not have an entry. So numerous authors/scholars in the field do not consider it important enough to mention. By contrast, the Campbell and Quick OHP Handbook has an entire chapter on MSDs, and it is mentioned in other chapters too. The OHP chapter in Coreil's Social and Behavioral Foundations of Public Health says the following "This chapter will discuss five OHP issues that affect the health, safety, and well-being of employees", Number 2 is "Musculoskeletal disorders that are caused, as least in part, by carrying out job tasks" (p. 401). Psyc12 (talk) 22:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * And yet industrial and organizational psychology states in the lead that it is concerned with workplace health and safety as well. It also discusses musculoskeletal disorders ("For instance, researchers at the institute of work psychology (IWP) examined the mediating role of psychological strain in relation to musculoskeletal disorders"), and references it with a link to the Journal of Applied Psychology. You might be able to argue that OHP is more relevant, but to exclude I/O you'd have to demonstrate that it isn't relevant at all (rather than less relevant). --  At am a  頭 22:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for acting as a mediator here Atama and providing some common sense reasoning and sound knowledge of Wikipedia policy. This kind of neutral third party involvement, in the occupational health psychology article would have helped immensely, in hindsight. As already noted, occupational stress has been shown as one cause of muscoskeletal disorders. Both areas are concerned with occupational stress. Both articles should therefore be included in the see also section, for the benefit of the reader. A side point is that many of the researchers who have identified this link between MSDs hold Doctorates in I/O psychology and/or are occupational/organizational psychologists. Much of this research has also come from the IWP, as you correctly noted Atama. The IWP is "home to one of the largest groups of occupational psychology academics in Europe" please see: https://www.postgraduatestudentships.co.uk/department/university-sheffield/institute-work-psychology. Although not even applicable in this case, psyc12's argument that OHP is more relevant than work psychology, to MSD's is simply not true.Mrm7171 (talk) 23:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * . I already showed above that MSDs are not a topic within I/O at all--not one mention, and so that makes it not relevant at all. I don't understand how the existence of this article informs whether MSDs are relevant to I/O. The article doesn't say that it is an I/O article or that the study of MSDs is relevant to I/O. It is just an article about psychological factors in MSDs. The only reason it is mentioned in the I/O article is because yesterday Mrm7171 put it there. I do not think it belongs because MSDs are not even a minor topic in the field, as noted above. Psyc12 (talk) 23:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * If you go to the website for IWO you will see their mission/purpose, and it has nothing to do with MSDs, and they don't mention physical health either. What they describe is what is described in many places as the domain of I/O.[ http://www.sheffield.ac.uk/management/research/iwp/about] Here's two quotes from their site.


 * "to evaluate and implement programs that aim to improve team performance, employee engagement and wellbeing, and leadership." "Illustrative issues we have addressed include creativity training, idea capture schemes, empowerment, employee engagement, organisational change, leadership, management support, team-working, bullying and violence, employee wellbeing and small business needs."


 * And while we are discussing this, Mrm7171 undid my edit for the third time in two days and stuck I/O back in. Psyc12 (talk) 00:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Apologies. Did not know this discussion was still continuing after your last comment Atama. I'm also not sure if I'm able to contribute here, or why it would even be necessary to further this discussion. I could easily refute psyc12's points above, but with all due respect, I think psyc12's comments are missing the point, regarding this whole discussion relating to the 'see also' section of that article.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, your edit re-started the edit war that went dormant when discussion started, so it was definitely not a good one Mrm7171. My suggestion, as a good faith gesture, is to self-revert to show that you didn't mean to circumvent discussion that way.


 * So the I/O page didn't say anything about MSDs until a day ago when you changed the article to justify adding I/O it to the "see also" section of the MSD article? --  At am a  頭 01:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, should have given diffs. Psyc12 (talk) 02:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Undid inclusion as a good faith gesture. Regarding addition of reliable source, yes, the reliable source was added to article 2 days ago? Not to justify addition though. It was because psyc12 demanded a reliable source, so I gave him one and then also included it in article? There are other reliable sources too. But does it matter to this point under discussion? The reliable source added is sound, and fits in well with both occupational stress and occupational health and safety, both topics in the article. Definition in lede of article is long term. Your common sense reasoning and application of policy, already outlined above Atama, is also sound. Work and organizational psychology is relevant to MSDs, as much as occupational health psychology, if not more so! Work & organizational psychologists are increasingly concerned with the physical and mental health outcomes of occupational stress, particularly throughout Europe. A further justification for its relevance is the strong relationship between human factors and ergonomics and occupational psychology. Also, many of the researchers who identified this link between MSDs hold Doctorates in I/O psychology and/or are occupational/organizational psychologists. I fail to see why or how occupational health psychology would be included and then to restrict the inclusion of work psychology also?Mrm7171 (talk) 04:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * As a side note, I also added occupational medicine and occupational hygiene 2 weeks ago when I added organizational psychology to that article's see also section, for the benefit of the reader. They too are relevant. We need to remember it is the link between occupational stress as one cause of MSDs, that we are talking about here. Helping organizations reduce work stress in turn will reduce MSD's. That is the relevance to work psychology and occupational health psychology, for that matter!Mrm7171 (talk) 04:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Briefly Atama. Here is a 2013 case study titled OP (occupational psychology) in practice. It can be cited within a definitive source titled work and occupational psychology: integrating theory & practice on page 241. I thought it was an interesting example of exactly how occupational psychology is relevant to MSDs through interventions for work related stress. books.google.com.au/books?isbn=1446260704 I could provide so much more evidence supporting work psychology's relevance to MSD's, but is it really needed? I am also amazed as to the veracity of opposition to its simple inclusion in the see also section, alongside many other articles, and the insistence by psyc12 that only the OHP article be included for readers?Mrm7171 (talk) 06:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I did a Web of Science Search for MSDs. Since 1968 they list 451 papers; 39 in the category of applied psychology. Of those 2 are in an I/O-related journal, Journal of Applied Psychology, that is a general applied psychology (not just I/O) journal. One was the Sprigg paper Mrm referenced. The other is a paper by Gary Evans who is not an I/O psychologist (environmental and developmental). This journal has published 9,191 papers in its history, 2 are on MSD, and only one of those is by people associated with the I/O field. As for the case above, from what is described, it is about stress, not MSD. By the way, I am not arguing that OHP should stay on the list. I was asked

it is more relevant. Psyc12 (talk) 13:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * and Mrm7171 I've been giving this a lot of thought. I've also been looking over the musculoskeletal disorder article. And something disturbing occurred to me, once I got out of the myopic focus on the propriety of various inclusions in the "see also" section.


 * So, a MSD is a health issue, it's where you have pain in joints, ligaments, tendons, muscles, and nerves. It's much like other injuries, like having a bone fracture or concussion or a bruise. Generally, Wikipedia articles related to health problems are meant to inform the reader about the health problem... Symptoms, diagnosis, treatment, etc. When I look at the MSD article, however, I see that only about 10% of the article (literally 2 sentences in the lead!) is devoted to the actual disorder itself. The rest of the article is devoted to its prevalence among workers, its impact on worker productivity and morale, and so on. All external links are to occupational health sites, and all references are related to occupational issues. While the two of you are in a prolonged conflict, you both obviously come from a background of occupational health (physical and/or mental). I looked at the original author of the article, and that person's editing history shows a similar focus.


 * This is a problem to me. This is not an article about musculoskeletal disorder. This is a coatrack article about occupational/industrial health. It doesn't resemble any of Wikipedia's legitimate health-related articles, either in structure or content. And I think the problem is because of who has created and expanded the article. This is like an article written about chewing gum written by people in the paper and plastics industries, who devote 90% of the article to what kind of wrapper the gum comes in, and who are fighting over whether or not waxed paper should be given undue weight over alternate wrappers (like foil). This article is inherently flawed due to the perspective of everyone who has been involved with it. It wasn't written in poor faith, it wasn't developed by people with an insidious agenda, but it has suffered because it was developed by people with a very narrow focus who lose sight of what is important in the article, and give undue weight to issues that are within their own interests and expertise but in such a way that it's a disservice to the readers.


 * Unfortunately, I'm at a loss as to how to repair the article. I'm a crappy content developer, I'm always open about that. It's a big flaw of mine, that I can see flaws and problems in articles easily but I don't have the kind of mindset that fixes them very well. The only thing I can think of is to reach out to some place like WikiProject Medicine so that people who actually do have such skills can give advice or intervene. But there needs to be a fresh perspective on this article, and I don't doubt that there are others in the same state. --  At am a  頭 16:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I think your comments are spot on. MSD's don't just occur in the workplace either, and this article is simply about MSD. I think the issue is that it is weighted too much toward occupational health and causation, rather than general health and a focus on what an MSD actually is? I think inclusion of other research would improve the article giving it some balance. We should also call a 'spade a spade,' and refer to 'stress as stress' rather than dress it up. But that's just my opinion. To resolve this issue over the 'see also' section perhaps we could include both (as they are both relevant to work stress and its effect on MSD's) or neither. But to exclude one article and not the other is not fair? I'm fine with both options, quite frankly, to resolve it and move on from what appears to me to be a very minor issue, given other problems with this article?Mrm7171 (talk) 00:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The epidemiologic literature links MSDs more closely to working conditions that involve repetitive motion, lifting heavy loads, etc. This is not to say that sometimes individuals have such experiences outside of work (there may be research on this topic). But work is source of biomechanical problems because what one does at work is not voluntary. Sanitation workers must engage in lifting. Typists much type.


 * I think that what the article on MSDs needs most, however, is coverage of evidence-based treatments of MSDs. I think Wikipedia users would appreciate that. Iss246 (talk) 02:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, my problem is that after reading the article I only have the vaguest idea of what an MSD is. The disorder itself isn't described in any detail outside of the lead, and even there literally 2 sentences are devoted to it. I understand devoting space to talking about the impact of the disorder on the workplace, but right now the vast majority of the article is devoted to it. That info should be in one section of the article (which could be further divided into subsections, of course) and could be mentioned in the lead but should not take up the majority or even half of the lead. That's my opinion at least. Treatment of MSDs is fine, that's the kind of info that most of these articles have and it would be an improvement. --  At am a  頭 15:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The musculoskeletal disorder article has been restructured to put more emphasis on the disorder and less on the workplace. General content has been added, but there is more left to do on the nature of the disorder, causes, and intervention/treatment. Thanks for your input. Psyc12 (talk) 15:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm glad that my input was helpful. Thank you for listening to me. :) --  At am a  頭 15:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I have left the editing mostly to psyc12. However I just tried making, what I thought was a reasonable and sensible edit. It was quickly reverted by psyc12. Rather than me interact further at this stage, and be dragged into a protracted discussion, could you have a look please Atama at my reasoning on the talk page. Talk:Musculoskeletal disorder I really don't see why we need to focus so heavily on work related psych hazards and then psyc12 insisting on breaking it down into specific work related hazards like workload etc makes no sense to me, and does no justice to this article, in my opinion?Mrm7171 (talk) 00:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * It looks like the mess is continuing in a different arena. Just after the previous AN/I discussion was archived, Mrm7171 went to Elton Mayo where we seem to see a recreation of the problems between Mrm7171, Psych12 and Iss246 that we've seen with previous articles. I don't know who is in the right in terms of the article, but the same general issues we saw on the previous articles seem to be recreating themselves there. At this stage I don't know if we should just write this off as editors with similar interests running into each other, or if it should instead warrant additional steps, but it is at least worth a heads up. - Bilby (talk) 05:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Indeed. We have a complicated set of problems, in which bad behaviour plays its part. I feel that the underlying problem is based on the conceptual similarity of the mental universes of all three main participants. All are setting (slightly different) hard boundaries to concepts that (in my mental universe at least) are fluid and that overlap. (And whose details aren't of major personal importance to me, nor I suspect to most readers of an encyclopedia.) Both the concepts and their boundaries then become the subject of intractable wrangles. Thus we have had the issue of whether OHP is "really" a full sub-discipline of psychology, of whether OHP existed before the term was published, and endless issues about claiming various domains for various psychological "sub-disciplines". We also have poor use of writing skills. The results at best are coatrack articles full of lists, without a coherent story (though still not without value). Unfortunately, sorting this multiple-article mess will take more than a single wikignome with good intentions. As things are, any such gnome would need to have access to a fairly wide variety of printed sources (which I, for example, don't) and would need to have plenty of time to rewrite articles free from wrangles (which doesn't seem to be on offer). As the three editors concerned appear to be professional psychologists, we can hope that they will find some way of breaking out of this unfortunate pattern of behaviour, helping each other to write really good encyclopedic articles without having to insert multiple claims about professional boundaries, before some admin decides that the mop is really required. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I came close at one point to blocking Mrm7171 because it was demonstrated that he was following the other two editors and opposing them at various articles, and dragging them to multiple noticeboards in an attempt to get them either blocked or topic-banned (mostly due to COI reasons, glossing over his own of course). This led to a 2 week block in the midst of a discussion on ANI where a number of people were suggesting an indefinite block. He came off the block doing practically the same behavior. When I dug into the background and found this pattern, I threatened an indefinite block, at which point he seemed to back down the accusations and act a bit more cooperative. But while that seemed to cool things off a bit (enough that I had hope that they might be able to collaborate constructively) it never resolved the issue. I'm a bit worried about all of the editors. They're knowledgeable professionals, but tend to be pretty myopic (they're all SPAs to one degree or another) and just as Richard said this leads to coatrack articles. Anything they write about is either about OHP (Psyc12 and Iss246) or I/O (Mrm7171). If an article is tangentially-related to either discipline or issues covered by the discipline, it gets skewed to focus on whatever the editor's particular discipline concerns itself with. I think regardless of any interpersonal conflicts between these editors, there is a larger problem with their good faith but misguided contributions. --  At am a  頭 15:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

regarding powerwave technologies
hi I used to work for Powerwave earlier. Powerwave is now shut down. There is no company webpage. The wikipedia page was the only sensible thing (though it had flaws). I was really saddened and quite shocked to see that the article has been removed from Wikipedia. Now there is no trace of what the company was. There is no website nor any wiki article. For many former employees like me, the wikipedia article was the only sensible remaining page to the company which we had worked for.

This especially pains me since I contributed my bit (in $$) to Wikipedia just a few months back.

I appeal to you to restore the article.

regards, Parag Dighe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paragdighe (talk • contribs) 09:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I can restore the article, because it was deleted through a process that requires no controversy, and anyone expressing an objection to the article's deletion can either prevent the deletion from occurring, or have it restored after it was deleted. However, Wikipedia is not a memorial where we seek to honor individuals and organizations that have passed on. The article failed to demonstrate how the was notable enough to merit an article, and when I searched for coverage in reliable sources to show such notability I was unable to find any, which is why I deleted the article. So the article may still be deleted after I restore it, in fact it is likely that it will be, and the article would not be able to be restored after a simple request. --  At am a  頭 16:31, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * In any event, I saw this and removed the inappropriate content; but I think it is probably a copyvio.  DGG ( talk ) 16:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

SpongebobLawyerPants ‎sock
As you were the blocking admin, I'm notifying you of this new user basically carrying on the same editing pattern established by. Thanks. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I swear i dont even know that Spongebob guy. This is my first account. Dont mix me up. --Jonny Rambo (talk) 19:26, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * SPI started, though it hardly seems necessary.  AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I blocked Johnny Rambo, it's pretty blatant, but I'll see if CU is interested in looking for other accounts. --  At am a  頭 20:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Betterthansuchasyou again
Thoughts on these edits? OhNo itsJamie Talk 13:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That's the last straw. This editor has gone over the deep end since the last time I looked at their contributions. I've blocked them indefinitely. This person is engaged in the kind of behavior that has brought a bad name to Wikipedia, in defaming article subjects. --  At am a  頭 14:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That's what I figured. Thanks for doing the honors. OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:ANI
Hi, I wouldn't have been here if the issue was mere edit conflict. The issue is deeper than that as those users are teaming up to remove even tags that show the existence of a conflict dispute. I implore you to de-archive the ANI, I would even encourage you as an uninvolved editor to take a look and assess the discussion at the talk page.--  K a t h o v o  talk 11:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to de-archive your thread. ANI is for administrator requests; when behavioral problems require administrative intervention, or when there is some other kind of problem that requires administrator assistance. The issue you're having is a content dispute, and some issues you have might be settled better by WP:POVN (you suggest that stating that "Soviet annexation being illegal" is an NPOV violation) or perhaps WP:RSN (people dispute some of the sources you're using for your argument).


 * As for the tag... There's no black and white answer to that. A POV tag is supposed to indicate that there is a dispute. But that raises the question of when it's appropriate to remove the tag. I could step in as an administrator and state that if one person thinks there's a problem, against four other editors, then the tag must stay until that one person is satisfied. I don't think that I'm comfortable making that call, because in theory you could dispute it forever and it would permanently stain the article. As it is, you've had a discussion going for roughly a week now, and the consensus seems to overwhelmingly suggest that your wanted changes aren't supported by anyone.


 * I understand that you feel that you're being tag-teamed. Maybe there is a cabal of editors who want to maintain the status quo (functionally violating WP:OWN). But without taking sides, I can say at the very least that the objections that they've made to your suggestions haven't been empty "we don't like it" sorts of objections, there are reasonable arguments in there. I think that accusing you of soapboxing is a bit of a hyperbole, but otherwise I don't see anything that's out of line in that discussion. Your problem isn't the lack of a POV template on the article page (that doesn't seem to be a fight worth spending effort on), it's a lack of support from anyone. ANI isn't the place to find that support. An RfC should hopefully bring in others, but if it doesn't, it doesn't. Have you tried asking for fresh input from WikiProjects? A neutrally-worded request for other opinions isn't a bad idea. If you feel really stuck there is also WP:DRN (which is probably what you should have used rather than ANI). But being unable to gather support from others and losing an argument is something that happens to everyone. Even for me, I was in a recent discussion at Talk:Yelp, Inc. where I felt like the prevailing opinion (keeping things in a "controversy" section) went against our neutrality guidelines, was bad article construction, and didn't make sense in context of the article. But most people disagreed. I think that others made a mistake, but I had to move on. It happens. I'm not saying that you have to move on at this point, but there may be a point where you'll have to. It's how things are in a place like Wikipedia where everything is settled by consensus. --  At am a  頭 17:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, to be fair, I have seen quite a few RfCs about dedicated Controversy sections and their outcome is very predictable. It's possible the unusual outcome is merely the result of defensiveness regarding my COI, which often skews an editor's perspective. The much more paranoid explanation might be that a certain banned user that often uses IP addresses like this one, has been known to use established accounts for socking, and has been trolling me on Wikipediaocracy might be responsible. However, this is why discussions are closed based on the strength of the arguments rather than voting, so users don't have to entertain such paranoia regarding whether the discussion has been tainted. If the discussion does get a formal close, I'm not convinced consensus would be weighed in the same direction as the votes. Anyways, I'd be happy to take a look at the discussion noted above. CorporateM (Talk) 01:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * In this particular case, it is difficult to weigh the arguments because the discussion is all over the place. We do need neutral editors to be more persistent than POV pushers, but it is sometimes difficult to tell who is which. The extreme non-neutral wording of the RfC and other elements of the discussion give me the impression of a testosterone fueled "fight to the last stand" mentality. It bears reminding that we are all colleagues working together. I am somewhat lenient towards saying Atama's advice of leaving it be and editing somewhere else may be sound, but it is hard to say without being able to better assess which party is correct, given how fragmented the discussion is. CorporateM (Talk) 17:34, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh actually on a pure vote-count on the Yelp page is almost tied. Weird for some reason I thought it was strongly in favor of "as-is". CorporateM (Talk) 00:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet
Hi ... perhaps you could take a glance at some apparent sockpuppetry? You indicated in the past that you did not think sockpuppetry was afoot, and perhaps that will be your surmise again, but similar behavior has just surfaced with a new user. This relates to Indiggo, an article you have looked at in the past. The user's edits are here, and the article is at AfD. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:42, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I do remember that incident, and I'll definitely look into this new account. I'll compare it behaviorally against the previous accounts active at that article and see what I find. Thank you for letting me know. --  At am a  頭 04:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. --Epeefleche (talk) 06:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * So I've taken the time to look over the contributions of both Dany4444 and DavidLeib. I see some striking behavioral similarities that lead me to believe that they are the same person. Their edit summary usage is similar, and if you compare the message left on with the message left on  they are very similar. Both editors make frequent use of exclamation points in edit summaries, both insist that Piers Morgan is a racist, both repeatedly ask people to stop reverting them and take it personally each time. It's enough for me to call this per WP:DUCK. I don't believe that they are the same person as Indiggo77 who seemed to communicate a bit more aggressively and who used edit summaries differently (when they did so, which was not often). I also don't see any other editors in the history of that article that seem to match.


 * I feel confident in saying that Dany4444=DavidLeib, but what does that mean? DavidLeib last edited on March 4. Dany4444 wasn't created until April 5, over a month later. There is no overlap between the two. DavidLeib, despite receiving frequent warnings for disruption (mostly for edit-warring) has a clean block log. If DavidLeib abandoned the old account and created a new one, there is no violation of anything at WP:SOCK. Not until and unless the DavidLeib account edits again could it be argued that an editor is maintaining two accounts simultaneously. The only negative consequence of two people using the two accounts is that we can treat them as one person performing all of those actions, so the warnings from DavidLeib should be considered to be in Dany4444's history. Any evaluation of Dany4444 for a pattern of disruption should take into account the actions of both accounts. That means that Dany4444 is about one more incident away from at least a short block. They seem to have taken an editing break for the last couple of days, if they come back and start disrupting again then myself or someone else should block them. If you see any behavior like that and nobody else responds feel free to let me know. --  At am a  頭 15:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I had been thinking about you, but didn't want to trouble you. Thanks you for keeping this on your radar, performing exhaustive research, and sharing your incisive analysis and suggestions.  Best.Epeefleche (talk) 15:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, let me add one point. This editor has maintained that he has never edited Wikipedia before.  Per your investigation, this appears to be an attempt to deceive or mislead other editors, and distort the appearance of consensus.  And WP:SOCK states that: "The use of multiple Wikipedia user accounts for an improper purpose is called sock puppetry ... Improper purposes include attempts to deceive or mislead other editors ... distort consensus ... or otherwise violate community standards and policies." Epeefleche (talk) 19:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And in addition ... the editor has just started editing again, again deleting RS-supported material, etc.... --Epeefleche (talk) 20:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the editor for 24 hours just to get the point across that they are being disruptive and that they need to discuss matters on the talk page. I basically blocked him as I would a first offense for edit-warring, although the actual block justification is a bit more complicated than that. I left a message on their talk page explaining that I know that they had a previous account, and warned them about what would happen if they chose to use the account again (especially to evade the block I enacted). I'm probably being a bit too lenient, but it's somewhat in the spirit of WP:ROPE. We'll see what happens from here. --  At am a  頭 20:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. If you don't mind, since you are looking at the page, can you glance at the latest?  This comes from the other side.  The editor you blocked has, as you know, spent time deleting everything that might be negative about Indiggo.  But now there is an edit war by an editor who at the Indiggo AfD, etc., has been strongly antagonistic to Indiggo (e.g., the only delete !voter at their current AfD). Final warning had been given, but reverts have continued.  See here and here and here.Epeefleche (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And this is all over whether or not the members of Indiggo are American? Sigh... Well, so far I've tried to stay uninvolved with the article itself (I commented on this latest AfD but only on the use of a source, not whether or not the article was worth keeping). I think I'd rather stay uninvolved. So I won't weigh in on the validity of either side. But the edit-warring about that is not good. I've left a message on the talk page, and I have to go by what's at WP:BLPSOURCES. --  At am a  頭 21:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * He's baaack. Epeefleche (talk) 02:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * For the last time. --  At am a  頭 03:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for paying attention to this. You gave him/her/them every chance.Epeefleche (talk) 03:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry to have to come here again. Since User:Dany4444 was blocked indef, we have had a series of edits to the Indiggo article by SPAs, either IP or newly formed, deleting the same material Dany deleted, and without explanation.  What's the best way forward? Can you perhaps protect the article? Tx. Epeefleche (talk) 21:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I saw the edit by TroyMatthews37 yesterday. It leaped out immediately as suspicious, and I thought it could be DavidLeib/Dany4444 again. Here's the funny thing... I never blocked DavidLeib. If they want to edit with that account again, they can, but for some reason they haven't. Perhaps using sockpuppets for WP:SCRUTINY reasons? Who knows. In any case, it's difficult for me to conclude 100% that TroyMatthews37 is another sock and not just a fan (I made the connection between David and Dany partially because they communicate the same way, Troy made a single edit without a summary). But whether or not these are actually socks (both IPs are Canadian but one seems to come from Anjou and the other from Winnipeg, very far apart) they are being disruptive which is enough to justify temporary semi-protection. I'll have to look at the protection history to figure out a reasonable duration but I'll be protecting it. --  At am a  頭 21:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I decided a month is appropriate. The last time protection was placed was for a couple of weeks, and it once had a one month protection back in 2009 for vandalism, so I figured a month might discourage people from shenanigans. If not it can be extended. --  At am a  頭 21:33, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for you -- as is typical of you -- thoughtful and helpful analysis and action. Epeefleche (talk) 21:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Following up
Hi Atama. Just thought I would see what ever happened with the articles on Qualcomm sales execs. Let me know if there's any way I can help. CorporateM (Talk) 00:15, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sigh... Crap, I totally forgot that one, I'm so sorry. I think it got lost in the middle of everything else I had on my plate. Things are relatively quieter for me now, so I'll try to address it again. Thanks for reminding me.
 * Cool, thanks! Part of my charter with them is to do some cleanup where appropriate. Michael Luby is another one, but given his scientific pedigree, I think an AfD is less likely to succeed due to the bias' of the community. OTOH, sometime in the future I will probably be submitting one on their CEO to AfC, who I think meets the bar, because many of the media stories profile his entire background and most significant achievements. CorporateM (Talk) 14:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey, do you have an on-wiki example of Anand Chandrasekher asking to delete his article? I'm thinking of taking both his article and Jim Cathey to proposed deletion (I don't think a full AfD is necessary for either one). The Cathey article looks like it would be an easy deletion, but the Chandrasekher article could squeak by WP:N potentially with the coverage he received at CNet and MacRumors (the puff piece from TG Daily isn't very impressive). If I had something that I could point to where the subject requested deletion it might make it easier to suggest deleting the article. Neither one qualifies for speedy deletion. I haven't looked at the Luby article yet. --  At am a  頭 16:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I've emailed my contact asking them to ask Anand to make his request directly on the article Talk page. It may take a bit as she is out of the office until Friday and there will probably be some back and forth after that, etc. etc. before we get the message directly to him. CorporateM (Talk) 16:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * He posted his request for article-deletion. CorporateM (Talk) 00:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I proposed deletion on the Chandrasekher article, I don't see anything that merits speedy deletion (or I would have deleted it previously). If someone contests the deletion and doesn't substantially expand the article (showing notability for more than the one event) then I'll bring to AfD. In the mean time we'll see if it is deleted through PROD. --  At am a  頭 01:44, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I also took the time to review Jim Cathey. It definitely does not seem to satisfy WP:N. The only coverage I could find for him was from Qualcomm's own web site, and LinkedIn. I found newspaper coverage of a James J. Cathey in the Las Vegas Sun but it was a different person (at least I assume so, the article was about someone killed in the Iraq War in 2005, so I think it's a safe assumption). I'm also going to propose deletion for this article (again, I can find nothing justifying speedy deletion). --  At am a  頭 21:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You are much more thorough than I. Thanks for taking a look and prodding them. There are a couple dozen or so Qualcomm-related articles and those looked like two that could easily be scratched off the list. At some point I will work on improving one or two of the others. CorporateM (Talk) 01:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Daffyduck1234...
...(aka Sandboxxxxx and Ginsterama) has returned as User:Pomloverborn1999. No doubt, the duck is strong in this one. BMK (talk) 21:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, DoRD just check-user blocked. Thanks. BMK (talk) 21:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Nice! That means this is a notification made redundant by the Department of Redundancy Department. I appreciate the heads-up though. --  At am a  頭 22:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Samima khatun's sockpuppets
Hi! A while ago you blocked a sockmaster, Samima khatun. S/he keeps creating sockpuppets, and I wondered about how to deal with the edits made by those socks: revert them, leave them as they are or revert on a case by case basis? I asked at the Help Desk and was advised to talk to the blocking admin and let them deal with it. So here I am, asking for advice or your help in dealing with the sockmaster. Sjö (talk) 06:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow, I had no idea this sockmaster has been so busy over the last couple of months! There is no black-and-white answer to the question about how to handle edits made by these sockpuppets. Technically we have no policy that mandates reverting edits done by an editor evading a block (with some exceptions; !votes at RfA should always be struck, as well as comments at other particular Wiki-space areas). But a persistent sockmaster like Samima khatun is unlikely to be unblocked by an administrator, so they could be considered to have a "de facto" site ban. In which case, WP:BMB could apply. But determining whether someone is effectively banned is subjective, and in cases like this where no formal site ban has been enacted you can't be 100% certain that others will agree that the editor should be considered banned. Also, per our banning policy you aren't absolutely required to revert edits from a banned editor (that would be a stupid policy to have; if a banned editor removed vandalism or a BLP violation it would be awful if we had to put it back).


 * In light of that, my advice is to take these edits on a case-by-case basis. If you see an edit from one of these sockpuppets (an editor who has been blocked as a sockpuppet, not one who you suspect is a sockpuppet or who is accused or mentioned in an SPI investigation) then look at the edit on its merits. If there seems to be anything objectionable about the edit, revert it. You're unlikely to be opposed in that because the person who made the edit is blocked and can't protest. If someone else does object to your revert, you can tell them that it was a problematic edit from someone using a persistent sockpuppet to evade a block, and ask what value there is in letting the edit stay. (An editor in good standing can vouch for the usefulness of any edit from a block-evading or banned editor, but in doing so they take responsibility for the edit and if the edit is disruptive then they could face the same consequences that they would if they were the one who had originally made the edit.) Don't feel required to revert every edit without discretion, but if you disagree with an edit made by a blocked sock it's pretty safe to revert it. --  At am a  頭 17:14, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that made it much clearer! Sjö (talk) 09:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

ANI
I appreciate your remarks in my defense at ANI, especially as I have no stomach for it. If you'd like to find people quick to personal attack because they confuse attacks on behavior or arguments as attacks on the person, look no further than ANI. It is as if they think they have some diplomatic immunity there to behave in exactly the ways they insist are simply intolerable and must be dealt with (severely!) at once. Any non-admin unlucky enough to be hauled to ANI for any reason whatsoever can always bet on having their motives impugned (for allegedly impugning others') on evidence best described as mind-reading and to face calls to ban the person rather than focus on the behavior, especially where the behavior is merely a different opinion they don't like. It's a place where there's endless concern that someone has wasted time by pursuing whatever they consider a frivolous issue but always lots of time to pick through someone's edit history to see if there's anything else to complain about. It's simply crawling with the most angry, judgmental and thoroughly hypocritical people to be found anywhere. Anyway, thank you for your comments, especially as I really had no interest in going there. Msnicki (talk) 21:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I was the person who originally wrote WP:BOOMERANG (though it's been edited by many others since then) so I know what you mean about diplomatic immunity (I later added a section ). I make an effort sometimes to keep things in perspective there, because it's undoubtedly the page with the most attention, and when issues show up there instead of getting a few helpful responses, you get a lot... --  At am a  頭 22:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * For my part, I apologize for my reaction to this situation (apologizing to for the strong rhetoric and to Atama for the time you had to spend responding to my hysterics). After sleeping on it, I realized it was a non-issue. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 12:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I really dislike arguing with people that I respect, as happened on ANI (and I include you in that Spike Wilbury). But I did what I felt was right even if I disagreed with other people I'd normally agree with. I'm sure you and others were sticking up for a couple of other admins who waded into difficult, thankless tasks, and got criticized for it. I tried to acknowledge that as well even while trying to also defend the person who was criticizing them for their right to make that criticism. I hope I didn't appear ungrateful to them, I'd be a hypocrite to dismiss the efforts of people who do something I myself am loathe to do often because of how difficult and time-consuming (and often unappreciated) it is. --  At am a  頭 13:22, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * NP, Spike Wilbury. We're all human.  Msnicki (talk) 17:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Nice work Admin!!!

 * I'm a he (I self-identified in preferences, and I have a userbox on my user page stating it) but that's a common misunderstanding. I'm not sure how I like being called an "attack dog" but I appreciate the sentiment anyway, thank you. --  At am a  頭 23:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Ironheart Crown
Hi. My name is Eric Moon. I used to promote an MMA fight called the Ironheart Crown. There used to be a wikipedia page on us, but you deleted it, allegedly due to a lack of third party references. I was sad to see that the page was taken down because I was very proud of the events that we did, and it was pretty historic in the Chicago area.

Here is a third party resource that verifies most of the information that was contained in the article. If you could put it back online, I could work on getting more links to verify its content for you, and you could edit it as you see fit.

https://www.fightmagazine.com/mma-magazine/to-wear-the-crown-876/

I will find more for you as well.

Please email me to discuss. Thank you. Eric Moon (EMoon312@yahoo.com) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.172.26.2 (talk) 03:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. My name is Eric Moon. I used to promote an MMA show called the Ironheart Crown. There used to be a Wikipedia page about us. You deleted it because of an alleged lack of third party references. Below is one such reference verifying much of what was contained in the article.

https://www.fightmagazine.com/mma-magazine/to-wear-the-crown-876/

I was sad to see that the page was no longer available because I am very proud of the events that we did and they were historic in the Chicago area.

It would be great if you could put the article back up. I can work with you on providing more references to validate the content, and you could edit it as you see fit for content that is not verified.

Please Email me to discuss. Thank You. Eric Moon EMoon312@yahoo.com 216.172.26.2 (talk) 04:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello Eric, I prefer not to email people I don't know but I'll reply here, hopefully you'll see this. The Ironheart Crown article was deleted via the proposed deletion process, and the article can be restored by just about anyone by request. So I will restore it for you. Usually I caution editors about the longevity of articles I restore from proposed deletions, because I don't delete articles that I feel meet our inclusion criteria, but the magazine article you linked to above shows fairly significant coverage which satisfies the complaint made in the deletion proposal. The article should have more coverage from at least another source (more than that preferably) to really consider it notable (and therefore less likely to be deleted via an articles for deletion discussion) but this is a good start. After I restore the article I'll add that link to the talk page to let people know about it.


 * I wanted to thank you too for disclosing your identity, when editors have close connections to the subject (whether it's for a present or past situation) it's helpful to know that. If you intend to edit the article significantly in the near future, I suggest you read our plain and simple guide to conflicts of interest, but you're definitely welcome to engage on the article talk page with other editors without objections. Minor and uncontroversial edits to the article itself (see examples here) are also generally accepted. And it's possible that if you edit the article in significant but helpful ways nobody will mind that either. But others may object so just keep it in mind. Thanks again! --  At am a  頭 16:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Balkanian`s word
Hi Atama. As far as I can tell, Balkanian`s word was replying to Alexikoua's comment which referenced IP 95.xxx through a diff. Balkanian`s word wanted to clarify that 95.xxx was him but he had nothing to do with the Swedish IPs. 95.xxx geolocates in Albania. I support his version of events. BTW, at the time of BW's reply there was only one Swedish IP present. I added the others after BW's reply. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  00:46, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

UnbiasedVictory
As you are aware this editor will be back with his IP's etc.. - thus I have a question. What is the best way to report these? In the past I have tracked people like User talk:UrbanNerd by simply placing the IP address used on there talk page. This was so the admins involved would see a notice an thus take care of real problems. Is this a good way of doing it - or should we just report the IP's and other shocks to his/her SPI page? -- Moxy (talk) 20:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It depends on the situation. If you notice a single IP with a lot of edits, report the IP to SPI. If you notice multiple IPs in the same range making similar edits to one page, report the article to WP:RFPP to have the page semi-protected. IP sockpuppets are a particular pain because stopping them is like trying to nail tapioca pudding to a tree. --  At am a  頭 20:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the info. On a side note I am in the middle of looking at who is edit waring at the Mexico article. I then noticed the editor is not a native English speaker and is blanking things all over. Basically  a classic case of  "not here" in a few ways. Think I am going to metion him uat the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents as I dont have time to look at all the bad English edits and blanking of content done thus far. -- Moxy (talk) 21:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ugh, yes, that editor is definitely a problem. They're editing promotionally, adding opinion to article space, and their grasp of English is poor (this edit for example is pretty bad). --  At am a  頭 22:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Request for review of an article with "speedy deletion" status
Hello,

I am writing in regards of an article I’ve published back in March. It concerns BEYOO ONLINE – an online reputation management company.

I’ve seen the deletion log and the subject of the proposition, which is the following: “Company with no particular notability that does not pass WP:CORP. The only reference that refers to the company is a press release. Article reads as a promotional piece.”

Currently the article is located here: speedydeletion.wikia.com/wiki/BEYOOONLINE.COM As a part of another community, such as Wikipedia, I understand that there are certain guidelines to be followed. But if we are to compare the BEYOO ONLINE Wikipedia page and other online reputation management companies articles available on Wikipedia today, the BEYOO ONLINE article’s external links are being developed. This means more and more reliable external links are about to be added. Unlike the company’s biggest competitors, BEYOO ONLINE does not pay for expensive external links. The company’s articles are 100% original and unique, written by professionals in the online reputation management business field.

Considering the point of what I’ve explained above, I would like to point out another issue, which is concerning the Wikipedia philosophy in general. The BEYOO ONLINE article is an article, presenting a company to the Wikipedia community and visitors. But the company is also an organization of experts who have a lot more to share. Since the article has been putted for deletion, and here I have to admit that the deletion process has escalated to Speedy due to the fact that I haven’t seen the notifications. But again, I am reacting by adding reliable references. The company’s experts are willing to contribute to Wikipedia with additional educational and explanatory articles in the online reputation management field. It will be much easier to contribute if they have set the basics for more educational materials, such as “Online Reputation Management in Proactive Mode” and many others in an article like the BEYOO ONLINE.com one.

I am kindly asking you to review the article again and see if it fits the Wikipedia guidelines now. If this article for some reason does not meet the Wikipedia guidelines, please point out the part where it needs editing, so it can be edited immediately. It is important to have the article back online as soon as possible.

If there is something else I can do to speed up the process and immediately improve the content, I will be more than happy to do so.

Best regards!Activeormguide (talk) 13:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The article was actually deleted through proposed deletion, not speedy deletion. There are a few important differences. The first being that the article is not deleted "speedily"; speedy deletion can lead to an article's deletion in a matter of hours, or for more urgent reasons (such as an article that only serves to personally attack someone) a matter of minutes. A proposed deletion takes a minimum of 7 days to be deleted. Another important difference is that a proposed deletion can be invalidated by any person objecting to its deletion. So in that 7 day period, if any editor (even the article creator) objects to its deletion it cannot be deleted. You did not make an objection in those 7 days despite being notified as soon as the deletion was proposed. Finally, the last (and at the moment, most important) difference is that an article deleted through speedy deletion can be restored if a discussion at deletion review determines that the deletion rationale was invalid. An article deleted through proposed deletion can be restored simply on request. Proposed deletions are intended to be uncontroversial, and are for articles that nobody wishes to keep. That is why we give a week's grace period for objection, and why any objections halts the process (and not only halts the process but prevents any future proposed deletions at that article), and why it can be restored at any time.


 * So with that being said, if you want the article restored, I'll restore it. But I do so with a warning. I don't act on proposed deletions simply because an article was not objected to within the timeframe. I check whether or not the deletion rationale appears to be valid, and in particular I try to determine whether or not the subject appears to be notable. In this case the article does not seem to be notable, and the claim that the article appeared promotional was true. Looking over the article now (as an administrator I can do that), I see that the article is at least promotional in tone, even though I wouldn't delete it as an obvious advertisement per our G11 speedy deletion criterion. But it does need some substantial fixes, or the article may find itself brought to an articles for deletion discussion. In those discussions, editors weigh in and give their opinions on whether or not an article should be kept or deleted, and why (according to our policies and guidelines). Usually this is determining whether an article subject is notable enough, though there are other factors that can lead to an article's deletion. If an article is deleted through that process, it cannot be restored on request, and it can't be recreated either unless the new version of the article is substantially different from the previous article and seems to address whatever concerns arise during that discussion.


 * I can tell you that the article's biggest problem is notability. You need to show that the company was the subject covered by multiple reliable sources. That means it has to be more than a passing mention. Reliable sources do not include press releases, or blog posts, or something that was published by the company itself. The most common reliable sources are books and news (or magazine) articles, usually most places that have some kind of editorial oversight are considered reliable. If you cannot find such references, then the article does not meet our inclusion standards and will likely be deleted via AfD.


 * The promotional tone is more difficult to pin down, it tends to be a bit more subjective. But I read a lot of marketing speech in the article. Phrases like "The essence of Online Reputation Management" are not encyclopedic. In addition, the article's focus seems to highlight what the company offers customers, rather than information about the company itself. Look at other tech company articles like Google or Microsoft or Oracle Corporation for an idea about what such an article should look like. As a new article it does not have to be fleshed-out so well, or as polished, since those articles have been expanded and refined for years with contributions from (possibly) hundreds of different people collaborating on them. But I think you'll notice a dramatic difference with the way the information is presented. Those articles do not look like an "About Us" page from the company's web site.


 * As a person with a conflict of interest, I strongly suggest that you read our plan and simple conflict of interest guide, which has advice and information for people in your situation. In your communication with me here you've already shown yourself to be much more cooperative than many people who have a COI with the articles they create and/or contribute to, but I still think it will be of great help to you. It's written plainly, not with a lot of the technical and legalistic language that many of our guidelines and policies may have. I myself have worked with COI editors many times, I've been a volunteer at the COI noticeboard for years (before I was even an administrator) so I can also offer advice if you need help. I'll restore the article now, and give you a chance to improve it, but I suggest you work to establish notability before too long or you may find the article deleted again before you have a chance to polish it. --  At am a  頭 16:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

User Bmwz3hm - Heleen Mees
Bmwz3hm just reverted again, without reaching consensus https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heleen_Mees&diff=prev&oldid=605517759 --TheCockroach (talk) 21:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Bmwz3hm says Bmwz3hm's source is Heleen Mees herself: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Heleen_Mees&diff=prev&oldid=605522676 --TheCockroach (talk) 22:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not surprised on either front. Bmwz3hm has never denied a conflict of interest to my knowledge. The nature of Bmwz3hm's relationship has never been firmly established (speculating about it violates WP:OUTING) but there is certainly some sort of relationship between the two. It's a real mess, and I've been trying to be both fair and firm here. I'm tempted to block the editor again, but at the same time they've finally started contributing to the article talk page and I don't want to discourage that. --  At am a  頭 22:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Bmwz3hm just reverted again (with no consensus) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heleen_Mees&diff=605551419&oldid=605550436 --TheCockroach (talk) 03:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

...And what we're left with is a version of the article that nobody except Bmwz3hm supports. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 05:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring Heleen Mees
Would it be considered edit-warring on my part if I revert this revert? --TheCockroach (talk) 21:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Bmwz3hm sockpuppet investigation / Hong Kong IPs / meat-puppetry allegedly
re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bmwz3hm

I don't want to violate the Wikipedia rule against outing, so I'm not sure how to phrase this: a person who is allegedly associated with Heleen Mees posted on her official twitter that she was going to a Hong Kong hotel but later deleted the tweet. So that person could have traveled to Hong Kong, and while there used the hotel's IP to make a new Wikipedia account used to revert/add the same content, then could have gone to a Hong Kong Apple store to use Apple's IP and also make a new Wikipedia account to revert/add the same content. In that case, this sockpuppet investigation wont end up saying its the same person due to the different locations (but not because it's not true allegedly) so what's the point of the investigation?

There was also a tweet (that I linked to at Heleen Mees' talk page) that showed meat-puppetry going on. After I posted it, the tweet was deleted. (If this comment violates the Wikipedia rule against outing, please delete/refactor it. Thank you!)--TheCockroach (talk) 17:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not a CheckUser, so I don't know exactly what kind of information they are privy to with their tools. They keep that info secret so as not to give editors clues as to how to defeat it. I know that it's much more than an IP address. I'm fairly certain they can also get information about an editor's browser and version (because I've seen that mentioned in a CheckUser evidence discussion), and I suspect they may get ISP info, maybe even a MAC address. All of that helps them figure out if it's being done from the same computer. Someone using a home computer then flying to Shanghai and using a cyber café is going to show up as technically unrelated.


 * But it's worth at least checking. Any editors that are technically-related can be dealt with appropriately. Editors who aren't technically-related aren't necessarily "cleared", there is still behavioral analysis to look at. But it helps. --  At am a  頭 17:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protect Sant Singh Chatwal from vandalism?
Am I allowed to make the Sant Singh Chatwal wikipedia article semi-protected or is that something only administrators can do? There has been vandalism by IP users:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sant_Singh_Chatwal&diff=605416124&oldid=605314896 by IP user 207.164.79.26
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sant_Singh_Chatwal&diff=prev&oldid=605293432 by IP user 207.164.79.26
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sant_Singh_Chatwal&diff=605103898 by IP user 207.164.79.52

--TheCockroach (talk) 07:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

The three most recent vandalism edits above (from April 21 to 23, 2014) of the Sant Chatwal article have the same exact content of older vandalism edits. These are the older ones: --TheCockroach (talk) 07:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sant_Singh_Chatwal&diff=498469986&oldid=464571068 by IP user 207.164.79.116
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sant_Singh_Chatwal&diff=392067921&oldid=387668386 by IP user 74.210.40.55
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sant_Singh_Chatwal&diff=373227900&oldid=373052036 by user Kochank
 * The tools to add or remove protection from a page are restricted to administrators. Requests for protection (or to remove protection) are generally made at WP:RFPP. Pages are usually semi-protected when multiple IPs and/or new accounts are causing unambiguous disruption (like vandalism or BLP violations) to an article, many acts in a short period of time (multiples per day). They can also be semi-protected if such edits are being done more slowly but over a very long period of time (though that is less common). And it has to be current. Essentially, the disruption has to be (1) at a high level and (2) very recent. Also, if there is something that is making an article temporarily higher-profile than usual (a person's recent death or a related controversy, an election, some related news event getting a lot of coverage) administrators can semi-protect for a duration that anticipates how long that extra attention may last. Full protection is normally extended to articles where there is some kind of persistent edit war involving a large number of people, and it's done as an alternative to blocking a whole bunch of people at once and forces people to stop editing the article and resolve their differences on the talk page. Full protection is typically removed once the dispute is settled and people are ready to get back to constructively editing the article. --  At am a  頭 13:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Good to know. Thanks for your response. --TheCockroach (talk) 19:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Donation Link
Please show me in Wikipedia guidelines where it says a donation link is not allowed. How can Wikipedia expect to get donations from sponsors and not allow its editors to as well? This is hypocritical. Peteymills (talk) 17:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I already linked to it on the COI noticeboard, but I'll link to it again. It is at WP:ELNO. A link to a donation page is prohibited for both reasons #4 and #5; "Links mainly intended to promote a website" and "Individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services". In addition, WP:LINKSPAM at our spam/advertisement guideline states that "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam." It explicitly includes user pages, and you're promoting donations for yourself, which is definitely prohibited under these guidelines. --  At am a  頭 17:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't these refer to links within articles, not user pages? I'm not promoting or selling any "products" here.  I'm just giving users some information about myself and asking them to help support me in my efforts.  Plus, wouldn't we expect a user page (as opposed to an article) to contain at least some "self-promotion"?
 * The external links guideline is mostly intended for article external links, true, though some of the prohibitions there would apply anywhere. The more relevant guideline is at our spam guideline, which applies to any project page, and the prohibited link criteria I mentioned above at the external links guideline is also prohibited there. As I pointed out before, the prohibition on spam links explicitly includes user pages. By soliciting donations you're selling your contributions in general. That is the basis of your donation request. I don't judge you personally for having such a donation page, you just can't use Wikipedia to do it.


 * Our userpage guideline has examples of what is acceptable on a user page. It states that, "You are also welcome to include a simple link to your personal home page, although you should not surround it with any promotional language." You are also explicitly prohibited from "Advertising or promotion of an individual, business, organization, group, or viewpoint unrelated to Wikipedia (such as commercial sites or referral links)." You also can't include "Extensive self-promotional material, especially when not directly relevant to Wikipedia." --  At am a  頭 17:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Btw, on the German Wikipedia i had a link to a blog on my user page, which was denied there and subsequently added to the German Wikipedia Spamlist. I only posted the link on my user page and 2-3 times on my talk page. No notice, no warning. prokaryotes (talk) 18:35, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * They might be less forgiving there, each Wikipedia project (and other Wikimedia projects aside from Wikipedia) have their own communities, cultures, policies, and guidelines. What works at one project may not work at another. That's the consequence of having most of the project be established via consensus, and having different groups of people at each place. The exception is that whatever is dictated by the WMF applies to every project. --  At am a  頭 18:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

In light of the admission of self-promotion, what about his wiki resume, errr.... his user page? WP:MFD? Template:Noindex? Just let it be? Certainly lots of other people chronicle their contribs in like fashion, though they don't usually admit to doing it to market themselves or generate offsite traffic/donations. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I've given it some thought. It doesn't really have anything objectionable on it, aside from that link to the donation page it was a pretty standard user page. The link his donation page and link to his personal web page were the only autobiographical things there, everything else was concerned with his Wikipedia contributions. The only concern I have is with the link to his personal page, he could change it to be another donation page, but given that he won't be a contributor any longer it's unlikely that he'll get many page visits. So I'm not that worried. If in the future his personal site changes, we can remove the link on his user page per WP:LINKSPAM. Until then it's actually helpful, especially as people review his contributions and his work as potential reliable sources that link provides biographical and professional information that can be used during the analysis. --  At am a  頭 23:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. Although the Noindex template would preserve the content while helping defeat the marketing intention, by preventing the search engines from indexing his page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I just thought about that too. If you want to add one feel free. It does reduce the page's visibility while still making it available for someone reviewing his credentials. --  At am a  頭 23:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It does seem consistent. Thanks, I'll do that.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:24, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Dopeslap, thanks for posting the template, I see now that I erroneously put it on his talk page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:58, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

FYI, this was from a 5 min quickie look I took no action NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * []
 * []
 * []
 * So User:Despres is an individual who has been blocked for more than 3 years. I don't see what on that user page is particularly objectionable. The fact that it has sat like that for years without anyone deleting it suggests that nobody else has a problem with it either. The editor was blocked as a sockpuppet.


 * The User:J.K.Herms/drft_art_on_splmtoday page was a sandbox while the editor developed this article, which was deleted through proposed deletion. The first version of the article was deleted via speedy deletion as G11 (promotional) but the article based off of that draft wasn't. I don't see any need to delete it, it seems harmless sitting in user space.


 * The User:Henrickson section on the other hand does concern me. It's different than the donation link that Peteymills had. It seems like semantics but I think it's important. The difference is that Peteymills was asking for donations to help him out financially as he develops his career in science. Henrickson is saying that people can thank him for his edits with donations. The important distinction is that Henrickson is asking for money because of his Wikipedia work, while Peteymills was asking for money for his non-Wikipedia work. Also, I didn't block Peteymills solely for the donation link. It was also because he had declared that his purpose on Wikipedia is to collect donations and to promote his scientific work. Henrickson hasn't made such a declaration.


 * That doesn't mean that it's okay. We used to have a bounty board where a person could offer a reward for work that someone did on Wikipedia. Someone may offer financial compensation for bringing an article to GA status, for example. But it was shut down last year after this discussion, and also amid the growing concerns about paid editing from the community and from the WMF itself.


 * What I think I want to do is open a thread at WP:AN to ask other administrators their thoughts. I won't mention Henrickson, I don't want to call someone out who seems to be a productive and non-disruptive editor, but if other admins support enforcing WP:LINKSPAM to remove these donation links then I'll try to have a talk with him about removing it. He's not around very much, he did make an edit yesterday (by coincidence) but he's made less than a dozen edits all year, and doesn't seem to be editing heavily since 2008. So he may not even respond. If too much time goes by without a response I'll probably just remove it, and leave him a suggestion to contact me if he wants it put back. But we'll see what happens. I'll let you know when I have a thread put together so that you can participate if you want to.


 * I will say I don't plan to go on a crusade to clean up everyone's user pages. We have thousands of such pages and doing something like that would probably take up all my time, and I think that problems like sockpuppet investigations and COI disputes take precedence. If someone wants to do a "no panhandling taskforce" then that's fine. But of course I want to make sure that there's a consensus that our guidelines support such a stance, and if they don't then maybe we need to change guidelines and/or make a new one. --  At am a  頭 17:08, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm... The reward board is still up. I think I was confusing it and the bounty board. The bounty board worked much the same way, except money was paid to WMF instead of to the editor making the changes. Why people wanted the bounty board shut down and wanted to keep the reward board is beyond me. It seems that paying money directly to editors would be a bigger concern about paid editing. But the discussion to delete it didn't have consensus, so it stayed around. I still think that with the growing concerns about paid editing that asking for donations would be frowned upon, but the presence of the reward board does deflate that position slightly. --  At am a  頭 17:13, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking into it; I only did a cursory search in reply to a question at Wikipedia_talk:User_pages, out of curiousity to know how common this is. I don't plan to anything more about it, though I may revisit the issue later.  Thanks for telling me about the reward/bounty boards.  Those are interesting ideas, I'll have to review them later when there's time. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:26, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, awesome, you already started the discussion. That's as good a place as any I guess. I'll weigh in too, thanks so much. I'm glad to see that nobody there disagrees that asking for donations on user pages is a problem. --  At am a  頭 19:37, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ...... disagrees yet .....*g     NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Missed some Socks
Recently you blocked User:Wild Wolf for operating sock puppets. Apparently he uses way more socks than I realized and is currently avoiding the block by using User:Mad Man American. Do I need to start another sock puppet or is this now a more severe situation? --Molestash (talk) 19:45, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's more severe in that I'll be blocking both Wild Wolf and this sockpuppet indefinitely. Initially, Wild Wolf was only blocked for a month to show him that using sockpuppets was not going to be tolerated and in the hope that he'd stop. But clearly he's been using a sockpuppet account for the past 4 years. I'll go to SPI with this, just so that this newest sockpuppet is on record. If another named account appears, you can feel free to either let me know or file it at SPI (or both). The great thing about SPI is that each case associated with a sockmaster like Wild Wolf gets archived to the same page so that in the future all of the history and evidence associated with each sock is collected in one place, making it easier to find other sockpuppets. --  At am a  頭 15:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Another TekkenSock
Atama, apologies for going directly to you on this, but there's another TekkenJinKazama sock that's causing trouble for a couple of other editors. Recreating articles, accusing editors of being sockpuppets, etc. The usual stuff in other words. There's plenty of evidence to make this an open and shut case but they are being a bit disruptive so I'm coming here to ask if you'd take a look and circumvent the usual SPI process as you've handled some of the previous socks. Appreciate any help!  Ravensfire  (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Atama - appreciate the help!  Ravensfire  (talk) 20:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Any time. :) --  At am a  頭 21:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

LudoVicar
Thanks for your post at my SPI report. It's been there a week and a half and I was wondering what was happening to it. Your comment on Alpacatracker was interesting. I only got involved in this article in a major way in the last few months: I have a list of others (that included Ellymental before the recent posting) that I suspect are from the same sock farm, but thought the right approach was to wait till they got reactivated to post an SPI. All the socks and potential socks have particular issues and approaches in common which if you spend some some time looking at them, which (sadly) I have, become quite obvious. I think it's also fairly obvious who the sockmaster must be. Looking at the history of the article since about 2006 - and once again (sadly) I've done that too - I believe that this sock farm has achieved a long-running and consistent distortion of the article. There is definitely a repeating cycle of the article being edited in a way which the sock farm wants, followed by other editors coming in and restoring NPOV etc followed by the sock farm gradually over months or years bringing it back to the way it wants. Anyway, thanks for taking the trouble of taking a look at it.DeCausa (talk) 20:19, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem, the case is on my watchlist now, and whatever the CU result (whether it shows that they're related, unrelated, or that the other sockpuppets are stale) I'll continue to pursue it. --  At am a  頭 20:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I saw the result: I agree I think that this tangibly connects the 2009 SPI socks with the LudoVicar group. I do think that there would be a benefit in merging the two in the archive to give the full picture when future issues arise. This is a very long-running problem - it might help others in the future piece it together more quickly instead of relying on those of us who have been involved being around to remember. I don't know how this works and who makes a call like that. DeCausa (talk) 05:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That is the job of the SPI clerks, to figure out how cases are related and merge them if warranted, and to rename cases if a new sockmaster is determined. I guess I'd be called an "admin patroller" (which is really any administrator who helps out at SPI, it's not an official title or anything). So I can't make that determination. I can make a suggestion to merge cases but I'd probably need to put evidence together to convince a clerk (or even find a clerk and ask them directly), my suspicions won't be enough. At the very least, everything in an SPI case is preserved in the archive, so the links made between the two cases and left for the investigation will be present for anyone who checks the archives. I think if more old accounts get reactivated the way that Ellymental did, and are connected to that sockfarm, the stronger the case that we have identical groups of socks and the more likely the cases can be merged. --  At am a  頭 15:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Would you be willing to WP:DUCK who's appeared today and reverted to the edit made by the blocked LudoVicar sock ? (Note misleading edit summary) Schofield1990 was created 3 days after you blocked Ellymental. DeCausa (talk) 08:32, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's pretty obvious. I've blocked this latest sock and rolled back their edits to the article. --  At am a  頭 15:30, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! DeCausa (talk) 15:31, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Haha, it looks like LudoVicar was angry enough to try to reset my password (an attempt was made by someone with the IP of 81.151.128.229 which is in the same geolocation as the other IPs). Since those password reset requests just go to my email they are harmless if I ignore them. But still funny. :) --  At am a  頭 16:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Being simultaneously sinister and inept is a talent! DeCausa (talk) 14:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thank you for the kind words, but I didn't know I scared anyone but my wife or relatives. --  At am a  頭 23:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I´d like to add my voice to this praise. I rarely do more than read at WP:ANI, but I find your contributions there very reassuring. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

IHTS IBAN
As you made the call in the earlier thread, I thought I would note that I made this comment in relation to the next reported incident because I think this whole situation sucks users into a time-sink-vortex with no productive outcome for the project. It's not specifically intended to imply that I think a block is necessarily out of order or not though; it's just I think this sort of thing will unnecessarily continue regardless of how these requests are entertained today or tomorrow or thereafter. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah this literally is giving me a headache. (Not your notification to me, which I greatly appreciate, just the whole situation.) It's enough to make you feel like a tired dad on a long road trip whose kids are in the back seat poking each other and yelling. I just want to turn the car around and go back. That being said, IHTS looks to be the main instigator here, between following MaxBrowne to this page (which should be prohibited by the IBAN though I will check to be sure) as well as continuing to beat a dead horse with the "narcissist" garbage again.


 * I find that editors doing this are just like children exploring boundaries, trying to see what they can get away with. The best response is to show them that they can't. I'll most likely block but not without looking further, I don't intend to make an annoyed, knee-jerk block (I try to be careful with that tool). I don't agree that this sort of thing will unnecessarily continue, if one or both editors refuse to stop the behavior they'll end up indefinitely blocked and/or banned (exactly because what they're doing is wasting time and resources better spent on other things and they are a net negative to the project). --  At am a  頭 15:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It looks like the IBAN is the standard "don't refer to one another, interact with one another, refactor each others' comments, edit each others' user talk page" bans. It's not saying editors can't follow each other to pages. In addition, I know that IHTS is very interested in chess matters so it's not unreasonable to think that he would have gone to that page just because it's a chess issue, and all of IHTS's comments were about and toward a different editor, not MaxBrowne, so I'm not going to hold his edits on that page against him. Continuing to bring up the narcissist thing, though, that is an issue. I'll weigh in on ANI and act appropriately. Thank you again. --  At am a  頭 15:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. FWIW, IHTS may also have a point in his response to the block - that he didn't read the remainder of the earlier ANI thread after his last comment, and therefore did not see your warning not to bring the "narccisist" incident up again (as his name was not linked to alert him that you were commenting in response to him, and as it was not brought up on his user talk page specifically). Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * See my reply on his talk page. When he chose to ignore the ANI thread that he was aware of, and that he'd even participated in, it was at his own peril. In any case I'm done wasting energy on him either way. --  At am a  頭 15:34, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think the whole thing is unfortunate, and I thought this may happen; Iam having doubts about the usefulness of this IBAN now. I think ultimately the other issues with IHTS approach (battleground behavior) would need to be addressed if he doesn't move on following Bushranger's apology, but in the form of an IBAN with this other editor, it will just invite other types of unneeded problems between the both of them. Ultimately, the tendentiousness from him will need to stop too. Anyway irrespective of this incident, I have always been meaning to mention that when I was more active than I am now, I recall having always appreciated the work you've done as an administrator, and admired the approach you've adopted across the board (and my interaction with you here would suggest that hasn't changed); I think it does benefit the project, and would like to thank you for your continued time and efforts in this area. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:42, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Excuse me Mr. Admin, but editors doing this are just like children exploring boundaries, trying to see what they can get away with. and It's enough to make you feel like a tired dad on a long road trip whose kids are in the back seat poking each other and yelling. are clearly intended to refer to at least this editor (me), and FYI, comparing an editor's maturity level to the maturity level of a child or toddler is obviously personally derogatory and an ad hominem WP:PA. (Why the hell as admin don't you go educate yourself like you should have before attending your RfA and read that policy and try better to adhere to it per your responsibilities under WP:ADMINACCT -- instead of flipping the bird at PA policy and issuing attacks??? Or is your idea, that it's my turn to return equal behavior directed at you, ridicule your maturity with ad hominem PA too, per WP:MUDFIGHT?! You aren't my fucking "dad" and have no moral or ethical or Wikipedia grounds to make that personally offensive and disgusting analogy.) What a conscientious admin you are, contributing to the wonderful civility found on this site. (A role model are you!) Get a clue: you can feel and think whatever you want, but you aren't free to per WP:ADMINACCT and WP:NPA say and write whatever you want. (Or did you think different, Mr. Admin?!?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * No, grammatically, logically, and rhetorically that is NOT saying you're a child and thus is not a personal attack by any definition. Analogies do not work like that.  Just like saying "it's like trying to find a needle in a haystack" is not offensive to neither needles nor haystacks. Drop the battle - in the long run you got what you wanted, even though you took the horrifically bad way to get it. Move forward. Show that you are, indeed, mature rather than try so hard to prove the opposite.  the panda ₯’  11:16, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh Bullshit, Panda -- you're dancing with words. (If I wrote that you "seem like a Nazi" to me, and that you "seem to be a carbon-copy of a Nazi" to me, and so on, I'd be blocked indef per WP:NPA policy, and you know it. [Yet, "grammatically, logically, and rhetorically" I never wrote that you were a Nazi.] Give me a friggin' break.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, what you just said is bullshit. If I say "this reminds me of the time I tried to push a cow up a flight of stairs" I am not referring to you as a cow.  If I say "this is as painful to watch as the time I stepped on a piece of pop-bottle glass", I am not referring to you as an open wound.  I'm referring to my personal feeling of frustration and hard work in the first one, and my personal feeling of pain in the second.  In your example above, however, you're directly calling me a Nazi, both ways.  Surely your command of the English language is strong enough to recognize the difference here  the panda ₯’  15:38, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * This is painful to watch. IHTS: you are positively hanging yourself. Who do you think is going to support you at this rate? You are being shunned, and you blame those who are fed up. You are running through any hope of support with this little admin crusade. Take a Wikibreak. I can see one coming if you don't figure out how this usually ends. Again: painful to see this happen. Doc <b style="color:#999999">talk</b> 11:20, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * So when an admin -- an admin who blocked me BTW -- gets glib in conversation and compares clearly specific editors he's just recently had issue with, to maturity level of children, you say that is just fine, admins can thumb their noses at WP:NPA if they please, and I should shut up for pointing out the PA and hypocrisy of WP:NPA -- which is and has been enforced ruthlessly upon me at the public stoning board, but admins are somehow exempt?! (Your idea of an editing climate here ain't exactly according to the precepts of Jimbo or the five pillars now, are they.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:30, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I want to offer you an apology for giving the impression that I called you a child. I didn't mean to, and looking at what I said above I don't see that I made that direct insult. But I understand why you would be sensitive to what you'd perceive as personal attacks, since you were personally attacked by another editor, and when you complained an administrator said that it was calling a spade a spade. So of course you'd be sensitive to another administrator making a personal attack against you. But I assure you that wasn't my intention. What I was trying to convey was that I felt that you were intentionally testing the boundaries of your ban by repeating that particular phrase, and I used an analogy I've used in the past where a child tries to test the boundaries of discipline through misbehavior. I'm a father in real life so it's something that comes to mind quickly. I suppose I could have used the analogy of a prisoner rattling his bars, or a man poking a stick at a bear to see if it was dead or just sleeping. I hope that gets across to you what I was trying to say.


 * I'll share an anecdote that might shed a bit more light on my mindset and provide more context. Many years ago I worked at an after-school program for children. I was trained in how to manage children, and taught techniques to get children to behave and listen. A couple of years later I found myself in a management position at a computer store. It was the first time having such a role, and I struggled at first to motivate my employees. But I thought back on the training I'd learned, and attempted it, and it worked! One trick in particular was to find a list of duties that needed to be done and let the employees pick which duty they wanted to do first. That gave them a feeling of empowerment, because it gave the vague impression that the tasks they performed were their own choice, even though they'd actually come from me. It was just like telling a child he had to clean his room and brush his teeth, but letting him choose which one he wanted to do first. It didn't work because my employees were like children, it was because human nature can sometimes be consistent at any age. In any case, again I did not mean to imply that you were childish, and my comment about feeling like a tired dad is because often in real life I am a tired dad, and also I was extending the metaphor I had begun earlier. I'm relating all of this to you because I do not want you to have the impression of administrators ganging up on you and insulting you with impunity. At the very least, I'm not trying to be one of those administrators. I could have simply defended my comments above as not violating WP:NPA but you've probably heard enough of that kind of talk already, and I wanted to give you the respect of a longer explanation. --  At am a  頭 17:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll share an anecdote that might shed a bit more light on my mindset and provide more context. First, thanks for apology. Second, please consider never making such comments again against any editor -- your personal and professional background using or discovering a technique that worked for you on your job is really irrelevant. It's an ad hominem personal attack no matter how "cuddly" it is commonly accepted or how frequently it is used by admins (which is a lot) on the Wikipeda. (As long as you're bearing your heart let me bear mine ... This site [Wikipeida] is *nuts*, because common practice, for example dumbed-down templated thinking, is used in high frequency and has replaced thoughtfulness. [Akin to Jimbo Wales stating editors should not behave as conscription monkeys but rather thoughtful editors.] The templated thinking WP:IDHT, WP:TENDENTIOUS, WP:TL;DR, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:NOTHERE, WP:STICK and so on are used with high frequency and therefore members are duped into thinking "it makes sense and it is norm and it is OK and I-can-feel-good-about-belonging-to-and-accepted-by-a-group-by-using-it-too". Not so. But it takes an outside anthropologist perhaps to point out the King has No Clothes.) Third, about the WP:BOOMERANG essay (same shit) you are obviously and continuously so proud of, the original text (I haven't examined recent modifications) had some value because it addressed making the same trespass in the same incident. However that essay has been summarily adopted and repeatedly used as a generalized abuse-club to attack anyone with a complaint on the basis they have not been perfect in their editing histories "either" -- with users scouring edit histories outside the incident and outside the type of transgression in order to swing said club. The essay is effectively WP-endorsed justfication to dismiss a rightful complaint and abuse a rightful complainer. (There are studies that show there's nothing the human animal likes more than the chance to abuse others with authority, and the ANI cesspool puts anyone in this world who decides to post as part authority/judge/executioner -- any concept of right or wrong, or fair or unfair, is out the door of course -- because it's so fun to denegrate somebody!; so satisfying!). To continue to be proud of that essay in any way shape or form is at your own moral risk IMO. (But who gives a shit what I think?! -- anthing more than two sentences on Wikipedia is typified as an irrational "rant" or "diatribe" -- unless the person making the typification is the one writing paragraphs and more than the two or three sentences of course. They they excuse themselves with statements like "I don't generally write walls of text, but wanted to express myself clearly about this particular point" and so on and so forth to instantly exempt themselves yet reserve the right to criticize others in future for writing more than two or three sentences with WP:TL;DR and "walls-of-text". So fucking shallow.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:33, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What are you trying to achieve? A forced mass apology? A desysop? A "remedial admin camp" for NPA violators? None of those things are going to happen today. But if you had to pick one of those three options, which would it be? <b style="color:#000000; font-size:small">Doc</b> <b style="color:#999999">talk</b> 11:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * How about ... "intellectual honesty" (as opposed to gag-me-with-a- spoon -meat-cleaver-doesn't-pass-the-giggle-test-fakery-and-blatant-hypocrisy)!? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "Gag me with a spoon"? What is this, 1982? I haven't heard that phrase in a very long time: you are dating yourself! I don't know if "intellectual honesty" is something that can be enforced here. It hasn't worked so far! ;P <b style="color:#000000; font-size:small">Doc</b> <b style="color:#999999">talk</b> 12:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * At least you got a sense of humor, Doc! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Atama, you've accused IHTS of hounding because of the Shogi discussion -- there are currently six threads on this talk page with shogi is the title, starting with User_talk:Ihardlythinkso from last August. I don't see how anyone can rationally argue that's not an WP:AGF fail. To be clear, I'm not saying IHTS's behavior has been correct, nor that they're likely eventual indef will be your fault, nor (as I just explained on their talk), you've done anything malicious or worthy of sanctions (or even much further discussion). I am saying your actions and block were sloppy and didn't help the situation. I know that exercising authority well is difficult (I've done it enough it real life), but your time will be better spent taking a few extra moments when doing the admin thing: e.g. posting an explicit warning on IHTS talk page, considering more carefully why IHTS ended up in the Shogi discussion, etc. Regarding the latter, I find simple direct questions on user talk pages vastly underutilized. NE Ent 13:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? I've done exactly the opposite, I said that IHTS was not hounding MaxBrowne, and that it's "not unreasonable" to think that the only reason he went to that page was because it was a chess-related page; in other words, he didn't go there because of MaxBrowne. And I said as much to MaxBrowne on ANI either. I said pretty explicitly, "I'm not going to hold his edits on that page against him." Because he didn't do anything wrong at that page, not at the time I reviewed the page. Otherwise you could be sure that I would have brought it up both in his block and in the comment I left after his block. I did say initially that "following MaxBrowne" to that page may be a problem, but after looking into it I clearly said there was no IBAN violation, and that IHTS restricted their comments to and about a different editor. --  At am a  頭 15:21, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm asserting you stated: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAtama&diff=606638569&oldid=606636245] "That being said, IHTS looks to be the main instigator here, between following MaxBrowne to this page." If I've somehow misread the diff, I'll apologize and strike my comment. NE Ent 16:15, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As I said, initially when I began to look into this I thought that IHTS might have violated the IBAN by visiting a page that MaxBrowne had edited. I went back to check whether the IBAN might restrict editors from editing the same page (some IBANs do have such a provision) but I saw there was no such provision. Furthermore, IHTS was pretty good about not addressing MaxBrowne either directly or indirectly on that page. That's why my follow-up comment was to declare that there was no violation and that I felt that IHTS didn't go there just because of MaxBrowne, and did so only because of his interest in chess matters. And if I'd concluded there was stalking I would definitely have noted that both at ANI and on IHTS's user talk page. Look again at my comment at ANI where I told MaxBrowne:
 * "I checked to make sure that there was nothing added to the IBAN aside from the standard provisions (because some interaction bans prohibit editors from following each other to pages) but there is no such restriction here. Also, I know that IHTS is heavily-involved in chess matters, so it's not unreasonable to think that he was there only because of his involvement in chess-related matters on the project. And he refrained from commenting until a third party also commented, and restricted his interactions on that page to the other person. In that situation I don't see any violation."
 * So I thought I made it clear that this wasn't a stalking incident (again, I thought IHTS was only there because he edits chess articles and areas related to chess), and there was no IBAN violation; he did a very good job of restraining himself from commenting to or about MaxBrowne on that page. --  At am a  頭 16:26, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Atama, I have to agree with the notion that you showed very bad judgement when you blocked IHTS -- 24 hours was far too little time. No matter, I smell an indef block coming down the pike, eventually, if he keeps up as he's going now. BMK (talk) 22:28, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * And I never liked you either, BMK. (I met you when you elected to insert yourself in a thread where I registered some criticism of your friend Dennis Brown. You came in to slander and insult me where you were not involved. You are not the only editor-enemy I've picked up for criticisms I've registered with Dennis. Sorry for displeasing you but I think for myself and ain't comfortable with crowd-think.) All your comments and proposals to block me (like when you recently joined Happy Attack Dog and Kevin Gorman in recommending a block) are tainted in revenge, don't kid yourself that anyone believes otherwise. You seem to have an issue with outspoken editors (like Kumioko) that are willing to back-talk to favored admins re dumbed-downedness that has polluted intellectual credibility on this site. And you feel kingly re your own precepts of decision-making to forward the interests of the encyclopedia, where consideration of editors as people be damned for the furtherance of the project. Of course there is no fallacy with your values there. Go take your snarky nastiness and frustrations out elsewhere. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:29, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Diff to comment regarding your previous input found here:  -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">Winkelvi ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  05:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Levity
"So, I'm no math genius, but it occurs to me that 2 reverts is not a violation of 3RR. Because 2 is not only not a larger number than 3, but a smaller one" ← that comment made my morning a little bit brighter; thank you! -- Jezebel's  Ponyo bons mots 15:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'm having one of those days (not just on Wikipedia) and it's a coping mechanism. --  At am a  頭 16:03, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, question and a thank you
First I would like to thank you for the way you greeted me - it was warm and fair. As you know, I'm in quite an awkward situation (and hopefully not a pickle). I do have a few concerns and was wondering if I could reach out to you for help regarding my COI and issues that are cropping up. I truly want to make valued contributions, I really believe in the spirit of Wikipedia - and don't want to into any prolonged conflicts with anyone. But it's hard in this environment, I could use some help and advice and not sure where to turn. SAS81 (talk) 00:58, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ask me anything you want and I'll answer as best I can. I've kept a half and eye on the Deepak Chopra article (especially the talk page) and the COIN discussion, though there is so much text I haven't really followed it. But don't hesitate to ask questions, hopefully I'll have something useful to provide you. --  At am a  頭 15:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! Regarding this comment you made "So a section devoted specifically to criticisms of Deepak Chopra is discouraged by policy, as would a section devoted to praise, or even a section devoted to both (as it would be prone to "back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents". A section called "criticism" implies that it should contain negative POV information so it should probably be avoided. "

I'm trying to find the highest wisdom here - one of the big problems I face is rather unique to Dr. Chopra in his particular field. He is a figure that is so loved and hated, most sources would reflect one or the other. He is additionally notable for being both loved and hated (a magnet for criticism). I of course believe both views should be present on the article, but this seems problematic if we do not have a section that highlights his reception as both because there is a notable 'back and forth'. This is such a critical question and I wanted to see if you could point me in any 'good articles' here that did a good job with such tricky topic or offer any other advice. SAS81 (talk) 17:59, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Let me see what examples I can come up with. There are indeed certain individuals that I would call "polarizing"; for whatever reason most people have strong opinions of them, both positive and negative. I'll look in particular for any articles that have been deemed to be "good articles" or featured on our main page, which means that they've been judged to possess the highest standards we have for articles. --  At am a  頭 18:12, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Here is a suggestion: Richard Nixon. At one time he was the most powerful man in the world, as president of the US. Yet he is probably best-known for the scandal that ended his presidency. The article has our "featured" status, which puts it among the best quality articles in the entire encyclopedia (less than one tenth of one percent of articles are featured). For a similar article on someone who is still alive, you can look at Bill Clinton, which has "good article" status, not quite as good a quality as the Nixon article but still rare (less than a half a percent of all articles have GA status). Clinton is not quite as controversial as Nixon, but still somewhat controversial. Clinton may be a closer comparison since he is more popular generally than Nixon, at least public opinion is probably less overwhelmingly negative.


 * For a controversial figure who is not related to politics, you can look at Michael Jackson which is another featured article. Controversial pop culture icons may be better comparisons than politicians. You may also look at Richard Dawkins, though he's probably considered more "mainstream" in his views (at least to Western audiences) he does have some controversial opinions, and like Deepak Chopra he is a writer. His article has "good article" status.


 * I tried finding good articles for living people who advocate unorthodox science and/or medical theories, and who are popular in the way that Deepak Chopra is. I couldn't find anything above a "C" class. So I still have to recommend the articles I suggested earlier even if they're not as closely-related. I hope this is at all helpful to you. --  At am a  頭 21:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I am going to give these a good study! Thank you Atama. I also have an idea, and not sure if this is a good idea or a horrible idea so I'm hoping you can give me a heads up either way. I noticed the WP:REWARDS program. It's been tough to find editors who are not involved in the subject to participate - and right now the majority of editors are highly suspicious and the one editor who came in to help is getting harassed :( - Would it be advisable to make a WP:Rewards, offer a donation to Wikipedia ($500.00) for uninvolved editors to come into the article and assist? I would not ask them to edit in my favor, just apply Wikipedia's guidelines and policies as honestly as they see it. SAS81 (talk) 15:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Putting something at WP:REWARD is generally acceptable. The community is wary in general of anyone paid to edit, but that page was nominated for deletion as recently as six months ago and it survived that discussion (the bounty board however did not survive its most recent deletion discussion). You'll note in the deletion discussion for the reward board that the closing administrator stated, "If all you're asking is for someone to bring an article you're interested in up to a higher level of quality, that's not a COI issue." I think that opinion will help you out here. But I do suggest that if you want to go through with this, inform people at the article discussion page first (and/or the COI noticeboard discussion) so that nobody thinks you're doing anything on the sly.


 * There is a monetary reward there now to improve an article (see here) though it's offering much less than what you are. But it does show that while monetary rewards are uncommon (it's the only entry offering actual money unless you count a dogecoin as real money) they aren't unheard of. My only concern in doing this is that anyone who is recruited to improve the article is doing so in the midst of a content dispute, and while getting more participation in a dispute is usually a good thing (it's actually one of the earlier steps in dispute resolution) it does make this a different situation than most reward board requests. Usually the reward board is a place where you ask people to create an article that doesn't exist or improve an article that is getting ignored. In the usual case all you need is someone with good writing skills, information resources, and knowledge of guidelines, policies, and the manual of style. In this case you also need someone who is able to deal with personalities who may be opposed to what they're doing (not in general, but on one point or another). So that could seriously hinder your effort. But some people might appreciate that you're offering to have the article improved by a neutral editor who is not subject to your direction or influence. --  At am a  頭 15:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

 At am a , SAS81 has asked on my talk page for me to participate in the Deepak Chopra talk page discussion as an uninvolved editor. I have heard of Chopra but I've never read his books and I believe I have a NPOV and an open mind. But because I have spoken up for certain editors and their right to participate on Wikipedia, there are editors who focus on pseudoscience that will, let's say, not welcome me with open arms. So, what do you think? Would I be banging my head against a wall? I know you have no crystal ball but you've been active on the talk page and I thought I'd ask your opinion. Thanks. Liz <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#006400">Read! Talk! 21:46, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Mediation is always like banging your head against the wall. :) If editors weren't digging in their heels there would be no need for mediation. The good thing is that when you bang your head enough times, you either shake something loose that's useful, or you eventually make a new forehead-shaped window. In this case, there are particular editors who are already fed up with SAS81, which is partially justified and partially because of pre-conceived notions about paid editors and/or people with a POV that favors fringe topics. So you'll have that against you already.


 * It's impossible to know how a mediation will turn out. My worst mediation case involved a dispute between a strong anti-COI administrator and an editor that was suspected of having a COI with the article subject. It lasted for more than two months and only ended when it turned out that the suspected COI editor was actually a sockpuppet and a propagandist employed by the article subject. Oh, and the administrator later had his admin rights removed and was site-banned for a couple of years by Arbcom. If you want to look over the painful process, it is preserved forever here but it's extremely long. But I've also had mediation cases that ended somewhat peacefully with a compromise of some kind. The most important skills to have are patience, an ability to keep people focused on the topic at hand, and the willingness to make suggestions without getting too involved directly. It helps to remind people of relevant policies and guidelines and to suggest whether or not somebody's proposal is in compliance with them, that's a way to guide things along without inserting a personal preference for one side or another.


 * Oddly enough, my first brush with mediation and COI issues was at a fringe science article. It's all in this archive, but I was still new; my account was only a bit more than a year old. I knew nothing about homeopathy and was coming into things without any preconceived notions. The discussion included the article subject himself, and so it was a bit touchy, but despite my relative inexperience I think things turned out okay, after the discussion was over both the article subject and the person who was conflicting with him had thanked me. So it's definitely possible to have things work out, even in fringe article discussions, though this was much lower-profile and involved far fewer people. --  At am a  頭 22:08, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Wow, LaRouche, and on your first mediation. That is like taking on the Tea Party, Scientology or Abortion. For most of the time, it is just you and Will talking to each other. You must have the patience of a saint to stick with that mediation for two months, especially when you had to make sure the other party was being heard but they weren't giving the mediation their full attention.
 * My problem is that I believe the editors experienced in pseudoscience articles (and this BLP somehow falls under this?) will see me as taking sides from the get-go. And, I'll admit, I tend to support editors who seem outnumbered or who I don't think are being "heard". But that is part of my interest in the process being fair, it isn't because the editor is pro- or anti-Chopra. In fact, what these editors are really mad at me for is supporting other editors who are sympathetic to Rupert Sheldrake and I can't tell you anything about that man, his work or his ideas (and I've stated that openly). But, I thought they were being treated shabbily in the talk page discussion pages so I spoke up for them. And, in turn, alienated these editors who still mention it even though it all occurred last October.
 * So, I'm thinking that I'm not the best person to get involved in this conversation. The talk page is pretty much a mess, I couldn't follow the discussion at all and, at this point, I think dispute resolution might be the best route. There are just too many points of contention. I think this dispute needs to be structured and organized so the points of disagreement are clearer.
 * Last fall, I thought about doing some work at dispute resolution, but looking over the cases, it seemed like few of them were resolved. Often editors just stop participating, perhaps when it's clear that resolution isn't a win-lose battle. Thanks for your thoughtful response and letting me use you as a sounding board. It's my nature to want to help but not if my presence will cause some of the editors to become more entrenched. That's not productive for anyone. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#006400">Read! Talk! 22:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Claim of User page to be fair and unbiased, unsupported by your interjection regarding Le Prof
Please look deeply into this matter. There is no tantrum, only an argument regarding the proper way to bring an article about a high profile BLP up to high quality. Take the time, and ask me questions if you have them. Do not rush to judgment. Le Prof 71.239.82.39 (talk) 19:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I did look into the matter, looking at the article history and the talk page discussions, as well as all of your arguments on ANI. That is the conclusion I reached. I realize you're blocked now (not from me though) but if you wanted to discuss this again when your block expires just leave me a message. I've made a judgment, I don't feel that I rushed to it but I'm open to having my mind changed. --  At am a  頭 22:07, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

email
Please indicate whether you saw my May 4 email message. Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 23:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I did. Filed away in my noggin but unfortunately not actionable here for reasons I know you know. It's not rare for me to get info like that (considering the areas I frequent here) but I appreciate it when I do. --  At am a  頭 23:16, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The ANI admin dispute on RT (TV network)
Hello Atama. I am the IP editor that filed that case. due to the ruling of the case, noting the illegitimate decision of revert-then-protect, to his preferred POV version, the editor in question, Ymblanter, will still be rewarded for his actions by his protection of the article version to his POV choice (which is against the consensus) for the next 30 days. I am not asking you to take sides in the dispute as to which version of paragraph should be. May i kindly ask you to simply remove the paragraph in question altogether, until a new resolution is decided in the talk page on what to add there at all. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:RT_(TV_network)#Edit_protected_again).

The paragraph in question is the last paragraph in the current lead. As you can see the very existence of a paragraph or a discussion about adding there anything only started in the middle of March 2014 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RT_(TV_network)&oldid=598673212 prior to that there was no paragraph and no controversy. This is ground zero, and this is neutral ground. Thank you for your clarity and insight in the ANI (same ip editor)79.178.48.210 (talk) 23:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll reply on the talk page of the article, thank you. --  At am a  頭 15:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I changed my mind, I guess what I have to say doesn't necessarily benefit anyone by being on the article talk page. I don't think this is an unreasonable request, but I prefer not to make edits through edit protection unless there's a compelling reason. Of course I think that Ymblanter's revert prior to protection was not proper, but that was only because Ymblanter was also the person doing the protection. If Ymblanter had reverted you, then some uninvolved administrator protected the article, then assuming those are unrelated and uncoordinated actions that would be fine. Neither version of the article is inherently problematic (if one version was then this wouldn't be much a content dispute and resolving it would be a lot easier) so the best course of action is to leave the page as-is and allow both sides to hash it out. It doesn't matter so much how the article looks right now, what matters is how you establish it should look when consensus is reached. --  At am a  頭 15:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll demonstrate why one version pushed by negative POVers is in fact, inherently problematic and in violation of WP:QUOTE "The quotation should be representative of the whole source document; editors should be very careful to avoid misrepresentation of the argument in the source."
 * Here is the current paragraph in the articles lead:
 * The network asserts that RT offers a Russian perspective on global events.[2] However critics have accused it of being a propaganda outlet for the Russian government.[11][12][13] In 2013 President Putin admitted “Certainly the channel is funded by the government, so it cannot help but reflect the Russian government’s official position” but stressed “we never intended this channel, RT, as any kind of apologetics for the Russian political line”.[14][15]


 * Here is the full paragraph, from which the misleading quote was taken (source) (M. SIMONYAN is the editor in chief of RT):

MARGARITA SIMONYAN: My first question is a bit immodest – about our channel. What are your impressions of it?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I have good impressions.

When we designed this project back in 2005 we intended introducing another strong player on the international scene, a player that wouldn’t just provide an unbiased coverage of the events in Russia but also try, let me stress, I mean – try to break the Anglo-Saxon monopoly on the global information streams. And it seems to me that you’re succeeding in this job.

I’d like to emphasise something of key importance. We never expected this to be a news agency or a channel that would defend the position of the Russian political line. We wanted to bring an absolutely independent news channel to the news arena.

Certainly the channel is funded by the government, so it cannot help but reflect the Russian government’s official position on the events in our country and in the rest of the world one way or another. But I’d like to underline again that we never intended this channel, RT, as any kind of apologetics for the Russian political line, whether domestic or foreign.


 * The full quote is properly presented in the body of the article (last paragraph) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)#Recent
 * As you can see they have misused Russian President Vladimir Putin, quote. by manipulated editing they have turned his meaning to "Im Admitting (no less) - RT is a propaganda outlet for the russian government". No less.
 * On second look my edit was wrong too. i wasn't aware that they cut and manipulated that paragraph to that extent.

The second issue with the current lead, is that it should be "some critics have accused it of being a propaganda outlet" and not "critics have accused it of being a propaganda outlet". This has been the consensus in the previous debate, and was in fact presented in the article until the protection expired May 3rd:
 * According to RT's mission statement "RT provides an alternative perspective on major global events, and acquaints international audience with the Russian viewpoint".[2] Western media perception of the network ranges from having a clear pro-Russian perspective, to having a strong pro-Russian bias, to being a propaganda outlet for the Russian government.

So, i would think, the two possible neutral reverts are either the version that GedUK locked on April 11, or going back to when there was no paragraph at all back in March. I thank you for your consideration (same ip editor)79.182.128.235 (talk) 20:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You make good arguments. If I were to participate in the content discussion you might even sway me. But I don't plan on doing so, both because I'm devoting my time elsewhere, and I've been wary lately of involving myself as an editor in articles where administrative action may be needed. (Otherwise I'd fall into the same trap that Ymblanter was in, where I have the tools and feel I should use them but I'm not allowed to.) But while you have good arguments, I still don't see how they show the urgent need to change the article content. As I said at ANI, if content is being disputed and discussion is active about it, there is no need to change content unless it's to remove defamation, vandalism, or copyright violations.


 * Our policy also states, "Pages that are protected because of content disputes should not be edited except to make changes which are uncontroversial or for which there is clear consensus." To explain that, let's say that you come to an agreement that changing the end of the lead to say "some critics", but you still dispute the rest. An administrator could edit through the protection to implement that change, but leave the article locked until an agreement is reached about the rest. But absent a situation like that, no admin (myself included) should be editing the article through protection, to do otherwise is against policy. --  At am a  頭 20:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Following what you say, and according to WP:LIBEL "It is Wikipedia policy to delete libelous material when it has been identified"
 * I believe the paragraph is clearly violating WP:BLP "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, persondata, article titles and drafts." . (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Where_BLP_does_and_does_not_apply).
 * If manipulating a quote of an individual, to make it just the opposite of its authentic meaning (actually to turn it against him), by the head of government of russia (Putin) to say that the government is in fact using RT as a propaganda outlet in not libelous and a BLP violation. Then I'm not sure what qualifies.
 * I am not sure why you are reluctant to act on this violation, because the guidelines certainly support you: "Administrators may enforce the removal of clear BLP violations with page protection or by blocking the violator(s), even if they have been editing the article themselves or are in some other way involved. In less clear cases they should request the attention of an uninvolved administrator at Wikipedia:Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Remove_contentious_material_that_is_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced). Perhaps you prefer to to bring this post to the attention of another serious, and uninvolved admin to enforce the policy. For your reconsideration, and thank you for your attention (same ip editor)79.182.128.235 (talk) 22:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not a BLP violation. It isn't denigrating Putin, and you're using a very loose interpretation of libel. Here's my advice to you: Stop trying to get me to use administrator fiat to win your content dispute. If you have to use these methods and don't have enough confidence in your position to win people over in a consensus debate, then maybe you should concede. Otherwise, use your energies at the article talk page. You're really reaching at this point in trying to convince me. --  At am a  頭 22:42, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Ambox notice.svg|link=|25px|alt=Information icon]] There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.   Thank you.
 * I thank you for your time. I have taken my proposed violations to ANI, for other admins to comment about. By no means this is a filing against you. I just thought it was the proper thing to give you an official notice i have opened an ANI, as our exchange here is mentioned in my filing (same ip editor) 79.182.128.235 (talk) 23:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome. I appreciate your civility and the notification. And I think that it was appropriate to bring it to ANI. I probably should have suggested it myself, other administrators may have a different opinion than I do on this matter. --  At am a  頭 03:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

SPI
Hi! I saw your comment. I'm afraid you misunderstood something. You wrote "...except that I see them disagreeing a bit", but there's no disagreement between them at all. They always tried to remove the information of the tributary status from the infobox. I think Junohk's self-revert was a block evasion revert. Please carefully check the revision history again and see Talk. Did you see Sockpuppet investigations/Sonnykim9873? Junohk is deeply involved with blocked users. Regards. Oda Mari (talk) 21:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I did see the Sonnykim9873 SPI. It showed that Ichrio Nazuki = Oshi niko, which is no surprise, I said on ANI that per WP:DUCK they seemed like the same editor. If I'd known there were other socks I'd have recommended (or taken) administrative action, but nothing else was brought up on ANI. I notice that the CU that was run at that SPI did not discover that either Junohk or Chadlesch were connected to the identified sockpuppets; if they were technically connected to that sockfarm the CU results would have indicated that.


 * The main reason why I determined they weren't sockpuppets of each other is their communication methods. Chadlesch seems to have a much stronger grasp of English than Junohk. Compare this comment and this comment from Chadlesch, which only have minor flaws, to this comment and this comment from Junohk which suffer from poor spelling, bad grammar and capitalization, and so on. I believe those differences convinced Risker to decline running CU between these editors. Those same differences led me to suspect these were different people who did know each other in real life.


 * I'm not saying they aren't problematic. Junohk in particular may have some competency issues (I don't believe this edit was intentional but it did reinsert vandalism, inadvertently or not). And the tag-teaming between the accounts is troublesome, assuming that Chadlesch becomes more active and continues to support Junohk. But those are problems unrelated to sockpuppetry. --  At am a  頭 21:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Belatedly, thank you for the explanation. I was busy over the weekend. I restored the sourced material on Joseon as Junohk did not reply/explain to my question and I thought I waited long enough. Regards. Oda Mari (talk) 09:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
You're welcome. :) --  At am a  頭 15:05, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I moved something off of the ANI board
I hope you don't mind. If so I apologize.--Malerooster (talk) 02:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I admit I'm scratching my head a bit, trying to figure out exactly what you did, but if you did it with the best intentions I'm sure it was okay...? --  At am a  頭 03:08, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

'Rinfoli' sockpuppet still disruptive editing
Sadly this hasn't gone away yet: Rinfoli has continued editing today, despite being revealed as a serial sockpuppet. He's reverted almost all my edits on the East London Mosque page - I won't try to undo that whilst he's still operating - and he's been reverted on the Abdul Qayum (scholar) page by another editor. Thanks for bearing with this saga! UsamahWard (talk) 17:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What the...? I thought he was blocked! That's definitely an oversight. I'm going to make 100% sure that all of those Aldota socks were actually blocked. (Ponyo said, "All remaining accounts noted as suspects above have already been noted and blocked as Aldota socks in previous checks." So I thought they were blocked). Sorry about that! This won't happen again. --  At am a  頭 18:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, I made sure that all of the sockpuppets identified by CheckUser were blocked and tagged. I also checked all of their most recent edits and made sure that any that weren't already undone were rolled back. This was from a mistaken assumption on my part, sorry about the disruption. --  At am a  頭 18:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sorting it out so quickly. Let's hope he doesn't try to return in another guise. UsamahWard (talk) 18:25, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * just had to revert edits by a 'new' user with a very familiar sounding name: Rinfolli. Can't say I'm surprised he's back. UsamahWard (talk) 10:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I blocked a total of 3 socks of Aldota today. I also protected Abdul Qayum (scholar) and East London Mosque for a week. I'm going to check on a few other pages that Aldota frequents to see if there are any other socks I'm missing. What a pain this person is. --  At am a  頭 19:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Couldn't agree more, it's really tedious. Thanks for taking protective measures on those articles. I told myself I'd look through other pages edited by the sockpuppets over the last couple of weeks to see if there are any lasting issues - but I'll probably leave it a couple of days, I feel I need a break from 'Rinfoli'! UsamahWard (talk) 19:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * looks like he got around the protection, guess my break's on hold. UsamahWard (talk) 20:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That was a "sleeper" created back in April. As an older account, it can become autoconfirmed and can get around semi-protection. There may be more sleepers but they can't have an infinite amount, and any new accounts created will take time to become autoconfirmed. This is basically the sockmaster throwing a tantrum, hopefully it will die out before long. --  At am a  頭 20:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * looks like he's got yet another account - Strangez - but this time I need some help. He's posted a message on my talk page, from which someone may be able to infer my personal email address. If I simply delete it, it's still there in the page history. Can it be permanently deleted? UsamahWard (talk) 10:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Update: might be worth checking Miragholo, whose edit just appeared. UsamahWard (talk) 14:55, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the last couple of days I was on vacation in the mountains and away from a computer. I've indefinitely blocked both sockpuppets (they were additional sleepers) and undid all edits either one made that weren't already undone by others. Besides being a deceptive, block-evading sockpuppet, Aldota is a terrible article editor and tends to overlink and make other awful changes to pages, so I don't feel any qualms about reverting any and all edits per WP:BANREVERT. --  At am a  頭 23:06, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned above, is there anything I can do to permanently delete (including history) his posting of part of my email address on my talk page? By the way, is there a record for the number of sockpuppets? There are 13 socks of Aldota currently listed here, added to which there is Rinfolli, Infernez, Fuhudof, Strangez and Miragholo - 19 so far. UsamahWard (talk) 07:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Update: make that 20! Can you believe it, he seems to have another sleeper: Rantino. UsamahWard (talk) 08:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I did what I could. I removed the posting that Strangez had added, and deleted the revision text, so non-admins looking at your page history can't see what was posted. If you want it completely hidden, that's more than what I can do, you'll have to contact Oversight. Also, Rantino is now also blocked. --  At am a  頭 15:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's absolutely fine the way you've done it. UsamahWard (talk) 15:31, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to return to this saga! The article about Abdul Qayum continues to attract suspicious edits. The complaints on the talk page by an IP editor are almost certainly by Aldota; I have received similar emails. However, my concern relates to a user AHLM13, who on the face of it is a different user who has been approached by Aldota on his talk page; the type of editing of this very recent editor could well be another sockpuppet, where the discussion with the IP editor was merely for show. Or, it could just be someone of a similar background, and I am now over sensitive given the huge number of sockpuppets created by Aldota. Perhaps you could have a look to see if there is any merit to my concern. UsamahWard (talk) 15:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm quite aware of AHLM13. I've been looking into the editor's actions the last couple of days. I still have some of those Aldota target pages on my watchlist. The most recent series of edits to Abdul Qayum (imam) are troublesome and I'll try to look a bit closer into them. I'm not convinced this is Aldota but my suspicions are getting stronger. --  At am a  頭 16:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Atama I am not User:AHLM13, certainly a good man. It is not good to write about a user privately, now I am going to let him to know. 109.154.90.200 (talk) 16:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You've made pains to be deceptive in the past about your sockpuppets, I have no reason to believe that you're telling the truth now. This isn't a public noticeboard, and talking about another person doesn't require notification. But at the same time I don't really care if someone else knows what I'm talking about on my user talk page, this isn't a private space either. If I needed to keep a discussion private I'd conduct it over email. --  At am a  頭 17:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Another sockpuppet
It looks like Mi7778 is another sockpuppet of BBB76. I don't know how to check (for registered users), so I don't know for sure, but the evidence is definitely there. --Musdan77 (talk) 21:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up. Same types of edits, to the same articles, and the username is similar. I've blocked and tagged this newest account, and logged it at Sockpuppet investigations/BBB76 for archiving. --  At am a  頭 21:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your response!
Thanks for your quick response. I thought I had done what you suggested before, but I guess I didn't click "save" on the next page.

Did I do it right this time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronfairborn (talk • contribs) 21:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Aaron it looks like it worked. I'm looking at the "pending submissions" category and see that it is listed in there. So it's awaiting review now. But it can take a very long time before it gets reviewed, as it states on your draft currently:
 * This may take several weeks, to over a month. The Articles for creation process is severely backlogged. Please be patient. There are 2725 submissions waiting for review.
 * I'm sorry you've already waited a month since finishing it, and now that it's finally submitted you might have to wait for another month or more. There are thousands of articles, though, and it takes time for each article to be reviewed. --  At am a  頭 21:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

UsamahWard
I am somewhat skeptical about you accusation on UW. Two editors can edit the same article but it hardly proves a match. A better proof would be if they edit the same array of article and no others.

I do commend you for having a discussion about it though — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.236.104.156 (talk) 10:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm confused... Do you mean my accusation that UsamahWard = Manspacey? In that case, what you suggest was the case; Manspacey has only edited pages that UsamahWard also edited (with a single exception, one user talk page). But I ended up retracting the accusation anyway, I unblocked Manspacey and UsamahWard and removed the sockpuppet tag from Manspacey. I did so for a number of reasons:
 * UW did not react the way I would expect most sockpuppeteers to act (it's hard to explain exactly, but sockpuppeteers tend to get more vindictive when caught... there's more to it but it's very subjective).
 * If Manspacey really was a puppet, the actual abuse was fairly minimal.
 * Some of Manspacey's edits weren't 100% in agreement with UW's point of view.
 * The person making the accusation turned out to actually be a pretty prolific sockpuppeteer.
 * I had made a mistake when putting together a timeline of UW and Manspacey's edits. By an odd coincidence, they had edited the same article one day and one year apart. On a careless examination, I'd thought that Manspacey's first edit was only different from UW's by a day, but it was by a whole year. That had been the clincher for me initially, but when UW pointed out my mistake I had to conclude that my evidence wasn't as solid as I'd thought.
 * If you're talking about accusations from or to UW, about Aldota's various socks, CheckUser proved that a number of them were a match, and the sockmaster himself has admitted it (and threatened me with further socks via email). I'm just not sure what exactly you're referencing, though, I apologize. --  At am a  頭 15:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

COI Help
Hi Atama. There are a few articles I've been working on in a COI capacity where I'm just having a heck of a time finding someone to stick around and collaborate with. North8000 was one of my most reliable collaborators and was just banned as a result of an Arbcom ruling (*ugh) and I was wondering if you had the time/interest to chip-in in a few places (whenever you have time):
 * A couple errors on a BLP here that are cited to an article written by the publication's opinion columnist (according to Google), but the article is included in the news section, so it may be a little tricky.
 * This article had a lot of unsourced contentious material and use to be a borderline attack piece. It's starting to shape up. I made a long list of changes to clean-out the junk sources, etc. and a few editors picked off a few bullets each, but there's still 5 left! Once that's done I'll get back to contributing content working top-down.
 * I've proposed an Operations section here on a company best-known for their employment practices, benefits, operations, etc. that seems like a clear improvement to me (replacing primary sources with secondary ones). There is also some weird thing on that page about the number of planes the company owns, cited to the FAA, which I think I am having a hard time following editor-input since I would think it would be obvious to just remove it.

If you don't have the time or interest, I would understand! CorporateM (Talk) 14:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll do what I can. WP:SPI has been cut down significantly thanks to the efforts of a few folks so I don't feel as much pressure to focus on it. Some of the articles I was involved with have quieted down recently (generally because the problematic COI editors have been blocked). So I can probably spare some time with these issues to lend a hand. --  At am a  頭 15:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Yours/user:Gigs arguments are sound, well-thought out and well-researched. I respect your opinion and appreciate that you prevented me from making a potential COI edit. @Gigs, FYI - you can see the other articles I'm looking for help on above. Each have some participation from a rotating crowd of editors that may pop in and leave a comment, but ugh, beat me with the WP:NORUSH stick, but spending one month on each section on a large article could mean a year or longer before GA. It's the usual dilemma of a paid editor that complies with WP:COI needing so much assistance from volunteers that have day-jobs and have only a passing interest in the page. CorporateM (Talk) 18:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Your wording on a warning
I want to say thanks for warning User:Pellaman. Hopefully that will do the trick since we do want him to edit constructively here at wikipedia. I do question your wording of our policy of multiple accounts where you linked to at Sock puppetry. You'll have to clarify if I'm wrong or missed something. You wrote:
 * 1. you have created two accounts which is against Wikipedia policy.
 * 2. Unless you have a good reason to, you cannot operate more than one account on Wikipedia.
 * 3. When an editor creates other accounts after the first one, those extra accounts are called "sockpuppets", or sometimes "socks" for short.

Per the page you linked to I find all these statements to be false. 1) Multiple accounts are NOT against wiki policy. Only having them to mislead, deceive, disrupt, or undermine consensus is against policy. 2)There are not really restrictions as to why one has multiple accounts only restrictions on what you can't do with multiple accounts. Your reasons can be your own. 3) Per Sock puppetry extra accounts are not automatically sockpuppets. It says "use of multiple Wikipedia user accounts for an improper purpose is called sock puppetry. I'm sure you just wanted to get your point across simply and firmly and that's fair enough. He probably needed it. I just want to make sure that if a different set of circumstances comes up that your quotes accurately reflect policy. Have a good one. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) The first statement is only incorrect when taken out of context. I hopefully explained myself properly in the rest of the paragraph. The editor did not connect the two accounts (per WP:SOCK) and if they were attempting a clean start they failed (both because the old account wasn't "clean", and because they went back to the old articles they edited previously).
 * 2) You can argue semantics, but really this is a six of one, half dozen of the other situation. I've never seen a situation where an editor is simultaneously not violating WP:ILLEGIT, and yet also not using a second account for one of the reasons listed at WP:VALIDALT. If you have, I'm curious to see it. In my years of working with SPI I haven't.
 * 3) I was trying to explain in the most basic way I could to a new editor. I could have phrased it better but my whole point was to explain simply what was meant when someone says "sockpuppet" or "sock", considering that the editor had already been subject to an SPI report.
 * I'm well aware that there are legitimate uses of alternate accounts, I've used one myself in the past. But Pellaman/Aggies14 did not go about things the correct way, and the way they used the accounts is abuse (take your pick between Contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts, Avoiding scrutiny, and Misusing a clean start). My basic point was to make sure that they used one and only one account, because the way they've been using multiple accounts was improper. --  At am a  頭 19:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!
Nikkimaria (talk) 02:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

TJK
And I was just editing the SPI page to include a CU check for sleepers and noticed you had things handled (as usual). Thanks as always for helping with TJK.  Ravensfire  (talk) 18:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. I took a little more time with this one because it was (slightly) less obvious than before, but the changes to Feng Wei convinced me. --  At am a  頭 18:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've saved a couple of API query searches for the IP ranges to help spot TJK's edits. Unfortunately, those ranges are from a mobile phone service in India so I have to assume that edits to a Bollywood topic are potentially valid, even though I'm pretty sure the vast majority of them are TJK.  The heavy editing from multiple IP's to Hari Om Entertainment and Grazing Goat plus the overlap of some of those editors to Tekken articles helped confirm the IP's for me.  The sheer number and the speed at which they change (probably a new one for each session) makes it not worth the time and effort to play whack-a-mole with SPI reports on the IP's.  I tend to revert ones that are problematic or any conflicts with other editors but really I'm hoping the IP's will lead me to the next account.  The semi-protection should slow down the common targets and for the rest - I'll just keep watch and go from there.  Whee - so much fun dealing with socks (but better than some of the other, highly prolific socks out there).  Ravensfire  (talk) 19:12, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

UTRS Account Request
I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool.  At am a  頭
 * Thanks for volunteering, I have activated your account.--v/r - TP 17:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks TP! If I'd been aware of the page earlier I'd have signed up sooner. I'll see how I can help. --  At am a  頭 17:38, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Nanshu
He's back and being even more ad hominem-y than before. Check everything he's posted on Talk:Kamuiyaki where he says that I've tainted the web by adding references to the article that the English spelling "kamwiyaki" is in use and his "kamïyaki" is better.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 11:13, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Also found this screed at Talk:New Ishigaki Airport.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 11:17, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I blocked him for 24 hours. I can only give someone a warning so many times before it stops meaning anything if I don't ever take action. But I will say that Nanshu probably lashed out in frustration for comments like this one. I'm not weighing in on what is or isn't proper romanization, but I don't care so much about which of you is right, I care about how you conduct yourselves when you disagree. And frankly, you're both terrible at it. Nanshu is more blatantly violating WP:NPA which is why I issued the block, but you both should stay away from each other, or at least not comment about each other. I'm tempted to go to a noticeboard to recommend an interaction ban between the two of you. --  At am a  頭 16:06, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * (You linked to the wrong diff but I know what you're referring to). I could find nothing that used his transliterations anywhere online so I thought that they were his own original research because he appears to be deeply involved in studying this topic.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 16:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Just to check myself, I looked too and I couldn't find examples of romanization of Japanese terms using diareses, nor did I encounter them when I studied Japanese (though I'm not a professional linguist, and my Japanese is pretty rusty anyway). I do know they are common for Eastern European languages when they are romanized. But again, I'm not taking sides here in discussing MOS or other content-related issues. The problem is that you both use escalated rhetoric when talking about each other. You're repeatedly at each others' throats. That's disruptive and it can't continue. If you can't civilly disagree you shouldn't be interacting with each other. --  At am a  頭 16:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Notice on Admin board
Hi there. I noticed you were an active on the Administrators Notice Board. A few days ago I left a message about an editor who is adding complex and misleading data to articles. I noticed today that the message has been archived. Do you know if anything has or will be done? I felt it was pretty serious, and the data was added to popular articles. Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 14:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The ANI board is for incidents requiring immediate administrator attention. If a report isn't replied to (by anyone, including the person who created the report) or is otherwise inactive for a few days it is automatically archived. If it has already been archived, nobody is likely to act on it because they won't see it.


 * I'm usually not around Wikipedia much on the weekends, and this particular weekend I was so busy in real life that I wasn't on the site at all so I didn't see it myself. I just took a peek at your message and I'll admit that there wasn't anything that seemed to demand immediate attention. I looked into the editor's contributions, and I have some concerns. He is fairly new (2 months old) and yet has had almost 700 edits, which isn't a huge concern on its own but when you also consider that the editor has had very little communication (no edit summaries, no user talk page or article talk page comments, only a few messages to deletion discussions) it's a worry. The editor appears to be mostly a single-purpose account but right now I don't see any specific actions they are taking which are actionable. Some of what they are doing is original research, but a lot isn't.


 * I did do a random sample though, and looked at this article, and then did a Google search, and found this page. They are practically identical, and the NRHP page has been around since 2013 so it's obvious that Calvingabor is doing copy-pastes. It looks like I have a lot of cleanup to do, and I'm going to have to leave a very strong warning and keep an eye on his edits, and possibly block him. What a headache. --  At am a  頭 16:47, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting back to me. I appreciate your help with this.  Magnolia677 (talk) 17:03, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Tsk, tsk
Funny, I was just chatting to another editor today about him being blocked in error - just as I was a while ago. Luckily I don't think I've done that - yet. Dougweller (talk) 19:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that's the first time I've ever done that. Pretty sure. Kind of sure. I'm not sure. But if I did it was long enough ago I don't remember. At least I figured it out right away and unblocked immediately. :o --  At am a  頭 19:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello
Hello Atama. Good to see you again. I need your help for some personel attack issue. In this page, User florian clearly insulted me. And his/her tong is very aggressive and disruptive. Please check this. Thanks.Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 23:21, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm tempted to leave a message for Florian Blaschke, "idiotic questions" is at least a strongly-implied insult and close enough to a personal attack that it might warrant a mild warning at least. Technically Florian Blaschke was calling your questions idiotic, not you yourself, but that's not a great distinction. On the other hand, you yourself made comments even worse, trying to drive away an IP with strong language: "It seems you know nothing about this topic. Your ignorence is so clear. Please save yourself your personel opinions about me, su4kin or another users. If you don't know anything except legends (It's obvious) please stay out of the discussion. You just being problem." That's more blatant an attack.


 * All I can say is, don't take on personal attacks yourself, argue in favor of your ideas and against those you disagree with, you should be able to do that without trying to discredit someone's intelligence in the process. If you can't then you must not have a very good argument to begin with. --  At am a  頭 21:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for back. I didn't saw any message on his board? On the other hand, yes my last comment might be a little strong but I didn't insult anyone and I did not want that. Still another IPs attacking me and provacate to article's discussion. These kind a topics are totally biased as you can see. You should be check or warn this kind a suspicious and potential vandalist IPs. Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 09:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The IP doing vandalism and insulting. please check that article soon atama.Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 12:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't leave Florian a message because, like I said, it was borderline at best and I'd have to issue you both warnings anyway. On the other hand, the IP (46.143.214.22) is way out of line, and I'm leaving a pretty strong message for them. That is not acceptable. I'll note that the other IP in the discussion (114.179.18.37) was already blocked for a week for harassment (they've done much more than the first IP has, and the block is warranted). --  At am a  頭 16:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * LOL thanks but I think Ponyo really deserves the credit, I had no idea there would be that many socks. I'm still kind of processing them right now. --  At am a  頭 19:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Inquiry
I want to inquiry about a editor who got banned from you. You provide the details about the conduct of user, and what really happened? You can answer me here.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 03:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'm always willing to discuss admin issues, who are you asking about particularly? --  At am a  頭 04:07, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Is that why you were non-responsive on my Talk to Qs about your block? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you're talking about, I spent a lot of time on my talk page here discussing your block. You never pinged me on your talk page so if you asked me questions after that I wasn't informed. --  At am a  頭 05:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Kumioko. I have made thousands of edits with AWB, I've went through the archives of AWB pages and the archives of its prominent users for knowing about the previous errors, issues of AWB. I've found Kumioko's to be present in more than half of these pages. I was thinking that what were the reason behind his dismissal, I haven't been around as long as you, I wanted to know from you. Thanks.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 05:24, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, well it was a community ban. There was a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard, you can read it here. There seemed to be a clear consensus to ban Kumioko after the discussion, only a few people objected to it after a couple of days and many more supported. The reason I gave when I logged the ban was "disruption, soapboxing, and inability to reform after being given numerous chances". I personally didn't have much, if any interaction with Kumioko prior to the ban discussion, nor did I participate in the discussion itself (as an admin my only role there was to view the discussion and determine if a consensus was met, and what that consensus was). --  At am a  頭 05:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I remember that one, because it was posted on Jehochman's talk page. I had something to do with Jehochman in those days. I agreed about the sock farming, but before there was conviction or even allegation of socking, whole community was against him. I don't know what were the reasons, we shall know someday.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 06:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The closer quite specifically said that it was not to be closed as a community ban. "I'm purposefully not going to log this as a ban. Think of it as a wikibreak. If you start socking or trouble making, this courtesy might be rescinded." It should not be listed as a community ban if that's the close. There has been no community ban vote after that. Process is what we all have to deal with. <b style="color:#000000; font-size:small">Doc</b> <b style="color:#999999">talk</b> 06:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The closer was me. Jehochman closed a community ban inappropriately, without making any judgment of consensus, which goes against the policy at WP:BAN. That out-of-process closure was protested, and even Jehochman himself agreed with the ban, at which point I looked over the discussion, judged consensus to be in favor of a ban, and logged it. You are correct that process is what we all have to deal with. My mistake was in not removing the closure template that Nyttend had added but that's really just a nitpick. --  At am a  頭 06:50, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I see it now: I misread something before. Sorry 'bout that! Cheers :) <b style="color:#000000; font-size:small">Doc</b> <b style="color:#999999">talk</b> 07:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't sweat it, it was a bit of a weird ban discussion so I understand how it could be misread. :) --  At am a  頭 15:20, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Your block of 86.174.240.211
Hi Atama, a few days ago you blocked 86.174.240.211 for harassing another user (after coming off a block for edit warring). I happened to notice that user has been trying to use the unblock template (though somehow managing to make it not transclude), but in a way that likely just constitutes more harassment. You might want to revoke their talk page access, at least in light of [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:86.174.240.211&oldid=609790782#Notice_of_Edit_warring_noticeboard_discussion what it says currently]. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 10:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up. I don't mind being insulted, for an admin to be insulted by someone as clearly disruptive as this is almost a compliment. :) But there are other insults and wild stories showing up on that talk page, and the unblock templates are being misused, so I both revoked their talk page access and extended the block to a month. I'm hoping they get bored and go away by the time the block expires. --  At am a  頭 15:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Not a problem! Glad I could be of help. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 21:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

LaRouche
First edit - LaRouche. . Hipocrite (talk) 00:18, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that isn't suspicious in the least... --  At am a  頭 04:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Here we go again.
Hi Atama. Can you check this article again? The IP is came back and deleting comments again. I think he using proxy or something like that.Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 10:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ps: Now another IP unrevert to last revision and mentioned "Full Turk Power" in edit summarys. He/she is faking. I think definitely this is a serious suckpuppet or proxy using issue.Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 14:33, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Changing your IP can be as easy as using a different computer, so it doesn't necessarily need any sort of technical skill. But that IP that threatened you and made racist insults in edit summaries is blocked for a week, and that article talk page is protected for a week. I'm hoping this person and/or people get bored soon, they will eventually. --  At am a  頭 17:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I hope so. Thank you for your help. I realy bored these kind a POV pusher, biased, racist IPs and users but no one can do anything... Whatever, Good Evening. Thanks again. Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 17:56, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/ChildofMidnight
Hey Atama, can you look at something for me? User:Freakshownerd has "Note also...". So there's two sets of categories? But it's established now aht Freakshownerd = CoM = Candle = all the others, no? Drmies (talk) 02:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it looks like someone made a separate category of accounts that CU connected to FSN, and a category for suspected socks of CoM. I don't see a CU at SPI confirming that CoM = FSN until November 21, 2010, and the category for FSN's confirmed socks was created on November 5 of that year. So my guess is that CoM was only suspected of being FSN at first. That's only speculation on my part though, from what I could gather here. --  At am a  頭 03:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014
Atama, I am Jin. I have specially came here to tell you i m just lost in this site. I have contributed to Karanvir Bohra last day. At least why you deleted the contribs? To that page? Well good bye and Jin says happy editing. I got it that here comtributing even like a sock is crime. I didnt did anything wrong. Well im sorry i learnt that contributing is your job my job is just to edit n block just block! 42.104.0.168 (talk) 04:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * And Sir, please at least you block me or accuse me do not remove edits. Karanvir Bohra had 25 citing sources but you removed and only 3 left. Wheres your policy that less source article will be challenged?? Atama sir please begging you! 42.104.0.168 (talk) 04:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * So you created, another sockpuppet after this? Come on, Jin.  Ravensfire  (talk) 12:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * In case you actually read my reply, the policy Jin is at WP:BANREVERT. You are de facto banned. "In the event an indefinitely blocked editor has continued to be disruptive and no administrator is willing to unblock, they are considered de facto banned." That gives me and anyone else on the encyclopedia in good standing the ability to revert any and all edits you make with any of your socks regardless of the quality of your edits. If you honestly want to contribute to the encyclopedia, and you don't just want to play a game where you try to slip edits past us, make an appeal on your user talk page, copying the unblock template text shown in your original block notice. If you make a good appeal, the community may give you a chance, it depends on how sincere you are and how willing you are to listen to suggestions. Not everything you have ever tried to do is bad, but the bad you've done and the disruption it has caused outweighs your good efforts at this point. Try to do the right thing, and maybe you'll get another chance. It's up to you. --  At am a  頭 15:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment
Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Theo van Gogh's Assassination
Hello. I see you fight with sock puppets on Theo van Gogh article. It seems that assassination article was recreated here. Please take a look and see if it is the same sock puppet that edits on the main article. --BiH (talk) 13:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It's the same one - . I've changed it to a redirect (like the correctly spelled article) and requested semi protection.  Also added a new SPI report.  Ravensfire  (talk) 13:30, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I was saying that some other user, that might be a sock puppet of, created Theo van Gogh's Assassination article, a completely new article. That user is and this is its first article, so I think it has something to do with those sock puppets. --BiH (talk) 13:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Atama, I threw myself into this without realizing what was going on and semi'd Assassination of Theo van Gogh for a mere month. The redirect, I think — not sure any longer, this beats my pretty little head. Could you fix, please? Just undo what I did if required, or protect for longer. (Note, I had previously salted Murder of Theo van Gogh, that's not the problem... I'm fairly sure I did the right thing there. ;-)) Bishonen &#124; talk 13:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC).
 * Sorry, my bad. I read the title and since I was just dealing with the other article, somehow thought you were talking about the article created by a different Jin sock. Same text, different title. Yes, this is also Jin. I'll add it to the SPI and tag it for speedy deletion.  Ravensfire  (talk) 14:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I deleted the Theo van Gogh's Assassination article per G5, and salted it indefinitely. Bishonen, Assassination of Theo van Gogh is just fine, don't sweat it. :) --  At am a  頭 15:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Atama. And thank you, Bishonen, for stepping into this madness.  Ravensfire  (talk) 15:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Blocked user returns
has returned to the Filipino people article as, in violation of their month long block. See Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive840 and Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive245. G S Palmer (talk) 16:04, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The Filipino people article is on my watchlist after all the craziness it went through recently. I already blocked this newest IP and reverted their edits to the old IP's talk page. :) --  At am a  頭 16:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I noticed that right after writing this. G S Palmer (talk) 16:08, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Note for you
Jin here. I had did applied unblock request on my talk page (albeit got declined). Sir i want just a reprieve from you. I want this ban to get ended up and thus my freedom. I want to be a good editor like you sir. I want to end this once and for all and for that i want my ban to lift up. Because of my sock all get disappointed. Even me, i want to be a responsible Wikipedian. Its really like to be Jailed up. Just one reprieve. And trust me Atama sir Jin will be annihilated from the site thus sock drama will end up. My IP address is on tracking in India. Help me please please sir. Please.. 42.104.3.89 (talk) 08:20, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I had said that you needed to listen to the community's suggestions. A recap of what happened on your user talk page:
 * You made a reasonable unblock request. The unblock request was rejected, as I thought it might have been, because when someone engages in an extensive sockpuppetry campaign it can take some convincing for them to be accepted back to Wikipedia. On the other hand, it did spark a discussion about your block which is what I'd hoped might happen.
 * It was pointed out on your talk page that TekkenJinKazama wasn't even your first account. Your first account was Malqrrishh which was created in 2010, and blocked on 5 separate occasions for copyright violations, violating our biographies of living people policy, and edit-warring. It was eventually given an indefinite block, by myself, because you were using it to evade the block on your TJK account. I suspect you created your TJK account in the first place in an attempt to rid yourself of the block log that Malqrrishh had (which you shouldn't have done).
 * Ravensfire pointed out how time and again that you were told what you were doing was wrong and you went against what everyone said. You've recreated articles that the community decided do not belong on Wikipedia. You've edit-warred numerous times. You've created account after account when you are not allowed to edit. You've broken our copyright and BLP policies. Ravensfire then asked you how you were going to convince us that you were going to do things differently, and that was your chance to convince people.
 * Your response was to argue that what you did wasn't wrong, specifically that recreating an article multiple times was correct because everyone else is wrong about it being non-notable. That is your problem. You insist that you "want to be a good person", to "be a responsible Wikipedian", and a "good editor". But when you're asked to do things that will show you to be a good editor, you defy everyone. This has gone on for four years since your original account. The problem is that what you consider to be "good editing" is different from what everyone else thinks.


 * I'm going to give you one suggestion. It's not a guarantee that you will be unblocked. I can't even do that myself, unblocking you at this point would require opening a thread at the administrators' noticeboard to get consensus that you should be unblocked. But I'm making you an offer that, if you agree, I will be your advocate. Considering how many times I've blocked your sockpuppets, if I speak up for you I think it will go a long way toward convincing other people that you should be given another chance.


 * My suggestion is this... We have something we call the "standard offer" which sometimes gets extended to people in your situation. The first part of the standard offer is that you take a break for six months. Today is May 30th, if you are able to stop editing Wikipedia until November 30th, the last day of that month, then that will be a big commitment on your part showing the community that you are sincere and that you are willing to listen. That means that you don't create another account (or use another account you've created that we haven't found yet), and it means that you don't edit anonymously as an IP address. Just stay away completely. We'll be watching for you as we have been for months now, and if you try again we will catch you. If all that time passes and we don't see any activity from you, if nothing shows up at this page which is proven to be you returned again, then send me an email on the last day of November. If I see that indeed you have abided by this, that you have shown patience and restraint, then I will open a thread at the administrators' noticeboard asking for approval to unblock you. I will have a talk with you first, to get some assurances from you about proper behavior, and I'll pass that on in the discussion. If you abide by all of this I think I can get you unblocked. You've made a lot of trouble for many people and wasted peoples' time (including my own) so I think this is a pretty generous offer. If you choose not to take up this suggestion, though, I won't even consider being your advocate. You are just one person against an entire community and you should know by now that what you've been trying to do these last couple of months isn't going to work. I hope you seriously consider my offer. --  At am a  頭 15:47, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * my brother i cannot live without editing as its my willing. 6 months without WP will be a 6 month jail. And sir i want to make a confession, since Ra.One has English usage the language infobox must include English and for that brother prescribed me to add reliable source for English use and added to Hindi. (BBFC site is reliable) As per site English has been added up as its second language. See the respected links to prove Ra.One's secondary language. . And as for me, i am ready. But sir still i want your help. For once only. A small Help

42.104.0.139 (talk) 18:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I am ready to surrender. But please sir i have a last request. Only to you. Will you help me ?

42.104.0.139 (talk) 19:05, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If you want help with something and it isn't against policy I'll help you. It's allowed to make edits on behalf of banned/blocked editors if the person (myself) stands by it. So go ahead with your request. --  At am a  頭 19:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Jin, for the 267th time, the language parameter in the infobox is for the primary language of the film. Are you REALLY going to try to tell me that the main version of Ra.One uses English as the primary language?  Ravensfire  (talk) 21:27, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Interestingly enough, Ravensfire the article is currently included in Category:English-language Indian films. I'm not sure if that's an oversight or not.
 * Jin, as for the film itself, this source says, "He was advised to make the film in English. But Shah Rukh decided to make it in Hindi." The English version of the film is a dub. Many films are dubbed in other languages to appeal to audiences that may not appreciate subtitles. Template:Infobox film states that for the Language box "Only specify the language 'primarily' used in the film." What you're insisting is misusing the box. If your "last request" is for me to go against how the infobox is meant to be used, no, I'm not going to do that. If you have another request please let me know. --  At am a  頭 21:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that category is a bit odd. It's described as films made in India where English is wholly or partially spoken.  It's not just a couple of words in the film, but it's not significant usage.  So it meets the category as described.   Ravensfire  (talk) 21:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There you go, Jin. The article already acknowledges the use of English in the film. It just doesn't belong in the infobox. --  At am a  頭 21:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * and my dear friend English is included in BBFC and so it says. Because of my jail term i cannot come here neither edit any actions (as i promised to WP and you all) i wanted this action done atleast. So i can rest in peace. Atleast help me in this. This was my final request to my only. Please bhai..

42.104.2.20 (talk) 07:35, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * So you want us to lie and say that Ra.One is not primarily an English film? Because that infobox is only for the primary language. Or are you insisting that the film equally divides its dialog between English and Hindi? Because all of our sources say it doesn't.


 * We could perhaps fit into the film the fact that the movie does have some English dialog in it. It can't go into the infobox, because again, that is only for the primary language, which is Hindi. But elsewhere in the article I'm sure we can fit it in. Otherwise we are misleading readers about the nature of the film. I hope you understand why it's important to avoid that in an encyclopedia. --  At am a  頭 17:27, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Atama no one is misleading or misguiding. You are my mentor, my brother and why i will mislead you? God English is used in it. Coz the central character played by Khan is a Tamilian who speaks heavy English in Tamil accent. Second point my mentor, The songs of film has frequent English lyrics (See songs Chammak Challo, Right By Your Side, Bhare Naina, Dildara). And moreover English speaking Chinese actor Tom Wu played a concrete lead with Khan. I have enough points to prove RO is bilingual. For my sake, For God sake no one is misguiding. Please have faith in me once please my mentor n brother. 42.104.3.7 (talk) 05:16, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Jin - this is a yes or no question. No dancing around the answer.  Is English the primary language of th film.  One word answer here - yes or no.  Ravensfire  (talk) 11:54, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes Yes and Yes. Its used. My patience is really destructed up. Even i cannot add English coz i'm Blocked (in Jail term) and plus page protected. Even My Name Is Khan is in Hindi / English. Even BBFC site too says. For sake of God please understand!! 42.104.0.138 (talk) 15:55, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * So when asked whether English is the primary language, you said yes. Which means you're lying. And this is why you're blocked, and will stay blocked. You are untrustworthy and a waste of everyone's time. --  At am a  頭 18:31, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey God swear im not lying. sir ok if i am lying So BBFC is also lying or what? Well no one is lying and i swear of my God. Tell me one thing, i am just tryin to add English to Ra.One and this article is my main subject. Had i said to add Tamil (dubbed language). No i just said the primary language Hindi & English just this only. Only and only this is my salvation if language is put up and i do not appear here neither will post on your talk page. You also believe in God. So why i will false swear of my God. In history of Wikipedia, no one pleaded as much i did. Please for God sake help me and i will be free and you all too. My begging limit is exceeded and i can only beg. For Allah's sake im not lying 42.104.0.14 (talk) 06:12, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You really think that language primarily used in Ra.One is English, not Hindi? Wow ... That's contrary to literally everyone I've talked to on this.  There are absolutely English parts in the original film.  There's even a line in the article about this - "He declined to make the film in English to increase its appeal for Western audiences, feeling that "cracking Hollywood on their terms" was unnecessary".  Jin, nobody has questioned, ever, that English was used in Ra.One.  But you are tilting at windmills now.  Out of courtesy to Atama, feel free to continue this discussion on my talk page or on your (TekkenJinKazama) talk page.   Ravensfire  (talk) 14:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)