User talk:Atama/Archive 8

Request Pt.2
Atama, I have another request. I would like for you to look into the following situation because if I make a move I may be accussed of "double standard". The article of Right Reverend Bavi Edna Rivera whose nickname is "Nedi" was moved from "Bavi Edna Rivera" which is the subjects proper name and which she is most known as to "Nedi Rivera" which is not her proper name and just a nickname. I believe that the article's title should be reverted to the original one, but I have been wrong before and that is why I am coming to you. I respect your opinion. Thank you, Tony the Marine (talk) 00:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If you want my opinion on how to handle the dispute, it seems like a simple article naming dispute that happens all of the time, so you come to a compromise or ask for an outside opinion. If you're just asking me for my opinion, on what the title of the article should be, I have to look at WP:COMMONNAME, which states, Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it instead uses the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. So my opinion is that we use what sources use, giving special preference to the sources used in the article, since that's how we're verifying the accuracy of the article in the first place. The term most typically used in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name, the scientific name, the birth name, the original name or the trademarked name. You gave the example of Abraham Lincoln, who had nicknames that aren't used for his article's title. But a more apt comparison is Bill Clinton, whose real name is William Clinton, yet we use his most common name regardless. You've asserted that Nedi isn't Right Reverend Rivera's common name, and I suggest that your case could be made if you countered DBD's sources with sources of your own, and again I think that the strongest sources are those in use in the article. --  At am a  頭 16:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your opinion, I didn't think about Bill Clinton. Tony the Marine (talk) 01:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Atama, I've updated Sense Worldwide
You kindly said you'd help with editing. It'd be great to know what you think of where I've got to.

It's at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:0aster/Sense_Worldwide

Question about newly enacted topic ban
Hi there. I saw you recently closed the topic-ban discussion for, and wanted to ask for a quick opinion. Claudio is currently rather active at eugenics in the United States, which he is attempting to link prominently to Planned Parenthood. Does the topic of eugenics movements fall within the field of "euthanasia, broadly construed"? It seems like an edge case, but one where problems will likely arise down the line. As I'm involved, at least at Planned Parenthood, I thought I'd ask your opinion upfront. MastCell Talk 19:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. Eugenics and euthanasia seem to only be related for how controversial they are, in practice they're very different. Euthanasia is basically a mercy killing, and I don't see that eugenics involves anything even closely related. Nor is Planned Parenthood itself related to euthanasia, the closest link would be in its connection to abortions, but it would take an unreasonable stretch to connect the two. Looking back over the discussion that led to the topic ban, I don't see either topic being mentioned, so I don't see that the ban was meant in any way to also apply to those subjects. If you could convince me or any other uninvolved admin that there should be a connection (maybe I'm missing something) then the ban could be enforced for those topics as well. --  At am a  頭 19:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Claudio's editing seeks to connect euthanasia and eugenics, although I can't say I've deeply examined his contributions. The initial complaint at WP:AN/I, which led to the topic ban, stated that Claudio tried "to slant the whole page on Euthanasia to say that the Nazi WW2 extermination program, which used the euphemism 'euthanasia' to camouflage outright murder, is akin to modern euthanasia." In other words, he seems to be editing to link historical "eugenic" movements to modern euthanasia. That's the link I see, I suppose. But I agree it's tenuous at most. MastCell Talk 19:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If he does anything, anywhere, on any page that is related to euthanasia, it's in violation of the ban. So if ClaudioSantos edits the eugenics article to discuss Nazi usage of euthanasia, that's a violation. But until then I don't see that it is. --  At am a  頭 21:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, that makes sense. Thanks. MastCell Talk 22:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As the original drafter of the topic ban, I endorse this interpretation, but obviously uninvolved admins will have to make the rulings...
 * By the way, thanks for closing, Atama. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Glad to help, I saw that the discussion had gone on so long, the consensus was clear, and I was uninvolved so it was a no-brainer (for someone like me, no-brainers are best!). :) --  At am a  頭 04:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

A clarification is needed in regard to noticeboards .Novangelis (talk) 13:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What if ClaudioSantos thinks abortion is a form of euthanasia, and that's why he's motivated to emphasize eugenics at PP? Jesanj (talk) 15:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * When the community decides that an editor can be trusted to be an administrator, that administrator is given a fair number of tools that help us improve Wikipedia. Unfortunately, none of these tools give us the ability to read minds (I don't even think checkusers have that tool, though I could be mistaken). As long as ClaudioSantos doesn't actually talk about abortion being a form of euthanasia, or try to suggest as much in an article, then there's no violation of the topic ban. --  At am a  頭 16:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point. =) Jesanj (talk) 16:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * But, at the same time, the topic ban is "euthanasia, broadly construed" and aren't we both implying that abortion could be "euthanasia, broadly construed"? Jesanj (talk) 16:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No more than I'm implying that alligator wrestling could be "euthanasia, broadly construed". Abortion is mentioned only once in euthanasia, and it's only mentioned to point out that the definition of euthanasia was meant specifically to exclude abortions. It doesn't become an issue until ClaudioSantos clearly links the two, either in article text or in discussions. If he does, then that would clearly be a violation. --  At am a  頭 16:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Side note - The topic ban was specific to the on identified topic ClaudioSantos couldn't edit constructively based on community review. It was drawn broadly, but not so broadly that any other topic he took up with and was confrontational or combative about would be covered.  That would have had to be a sort of civility parole, not a topic ban.  It's attractive to attempt to apply the sanction to other stuff that's irritating people, but that's not entirely proper.  A topic ban (arbcom, community, general sanctions, whatnot) is one indicator of trouble editing Wikipedia, but not an indicator of an editor unsuitable for editing Wikipedia writ large.  If they're generally disruptive or combative in other areas other sanctions can be proposed.
 * I don't see that CS is rising to the same level of behavior in eugenics related topics. Maybe he is or will, but I wouldn't go for another sanction at this time.
 * Stretching the first sanction is the wrong approach. If he does push too hard, get another sanction, or uninvolved admin to respond.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Query about the AN proposal
Hi Atama - I'm not sure if it's appropriate to thank editors who have responded to my AN proposal, but I'm sure it's OK to thank you for taking the trouble you have taken to input and advise across a number of related issues. I'm impressed by your user-page comments and can see how hard you strive to be fair and supportative to everyone. If you don't mind, I'd like to ask what happens with these things on AN. If they find support do they always get actioned, or is it the case that sometimes, even with support, they get archived and slip out of view (and presumably then nothing happens)? If that is the case, can they be relisted or brought back onto the main page somehow? I am also concerned about the suggestion that this is not the only account this editor has had, and wonder if there are steps that can be taken to check that. Thanks very much for any info you can give on this. Zac Δ talk   09:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I just formally enacted a ban from ANI that was archived, twice, and brought back twice, before I happened across it and enacted it. So yes, if it gets archived, it can get brought back if the discussion hasn't been closed. Generally with a ban discussion you wait at least 24 hours after the discussion starts until the discussion is closed (even if the outcome is practically guaranteed), and then usually an admin won't close it until it seems that the ban discussion has settled, in that nobody has commented for awhile (so that nobody can complain that the discussion was prematurely interrupted). The AN board doesn't archive as quickly as ANI though, I believe that ANI threads that haven't been commented on in 24 hours are archived, while it takes 48 hours for AN. --  At am a  頭  15:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. You are very generous in the time you spend on these kinds of explanations. Zac  Δ talk   16:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries, actually if I could explain it in fewer words I would! :p --  At am a  頭 16:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Question on Topic Ban
I want to know if the topic ban covers also the discussion pages and/or any discussion about euthanasia at any place. The admin Georgwilliamherbert who proposed the topic ban, once told to Jabbsworth and me, that the topic ban included the discussion pages but I would like to confirm that I did understand it correctly. I also want to know what means exactly an uninvolved administrator. Thanks --  ClaudioSantos ¿?  17:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for asking. Jabbsworth had pretty much the same question actually. Topic bans are different from page bans, in that they prevent you from editing or commenting anywhere on Wikipedia, even your own user talk page, if it is related to the topic you are banned from. So that definitely includes discussion pages.


 * As to what "uninvolved" means, the subject is covered at WP:INVOLVED, but basically it means that an administrator should not take administrator action against an editor when that administrator has been involved in a personal dispute with the person. It also means that if an administrator has been actively engaged in a substantial change of the content of an article (either directly or indirectly through discussion), they should not take administrative action in matters relating to that article.


 * The reason for this is to prevent administrators from abusing their tools, even unintentionally. Administrators are not supposed to be able to use their tools to enforce personal interests. Let's say that an administrator is arguing that a paragraph should be included in an article. Another editor disagrees and removes it. The administrator then puts the paragraph back and protects the article to prevent it from being edited until "the matter is resolved". In that case, they've used their tools to force their preferential version of the article to stay. Even if the administrator sincerely thought that their action was in the best interest of Wikipedia, it still has the effect of letting the administrator use the tools to make the article say what they want it to say, so their use of tools in that case would be discouraged. More obviously, an administrator in a dispute with another editor shouldn't block that editor even if the editor probably should be blocked to prevent further disruption, they should let another administrator make the judgement call whether or not to block.


 * Some cases are more of a grey area. If an administrator has only fixed typos, corrected links, or reverted vandalism at an article they generally wouldn't be considered involved in that article. Or let's say an administrator warns an editor not to vandalize again or they will be blocked, the editor then personally insults the administrator, and then vandalizes another time. The administrator could block the editor for vandalism despite the personal insult (otherwise any editor could simply insult administrators left-and-right to gain immunity from blocking). On the other hand, the administrator shouldn't block the editor for the insult itself, as it could look to be a block in retribution.


 * I hope that answers your question well enough. It's not always easy to determine when an administrator is involved in a particular situation, and sometimes lengthy debates can result from a question about a single action. It's really a subjective determination. But our policy does its best to define that for us. --  At am a  頭 18:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. Instead of assuming the risk, I had to prefer to ask you, due the following explicit warning:


 * --  ClaudioSantos ¿?  18:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you asked and feel free to ask if you have any other questions. --  At am a  頭 18:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Could you please requiere to Jesanj to refrain from asking me questions about euthanasia as he is well informed that I have a topic ban on that issue. Although I am constrained to assume good faith, nevertheless I also find extremely suspicious that he is attempting now to relate my alleged point of view about abortion to my alleged point of view on euthanasia, surely in order to extend the ban to other topics. First he goes to my talk page to ask if I think that abortion is euthanasia, and later he comes to your talk page to ask if the ban would apply if I consider abortion to be euthanasia. For me his intentions are obvious. I find his behaviour too provokative and a sort of harassment. He should stop. --  ClaudioSantos ¿?  16:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well let me ask you this, would you rather that Jesanj ask me questions so that I could clarify the scope of the topic ban, or would it be better if Jesanj just assumes that the topic ban should prevent you from getting involved in abortion-related discussions and articles and starts reverting you and accusing you of violating the ban? --  At am a  頭 16:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but this is not asking. --  ClaudioSantos  ¿?  16:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I missed that, I'll get involved in the ANI discussion. --  At am a  頭 16:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Planned Parenthood

 * Could you help me at Planned Parenthood? I am working on the historic section. I have added a tag/template warning that section is under construction, precisely to avoid that other users just came to delete entirely my work. There emerged a concern on the weight of the included paragraphs, so I am discussing the thing at the talk page. Despite the thing is being discussed, and despite even two other user agreed with the inclution of those contents but suggested to compact the thing in solely one paragraph, just few minutes ago User:MastCell just came and deleted all my work, all the paragraphs. He did not even did an attempot to discuss the thing in the ongoing discussion at the talk page. Hi as usual first deleted not dicsussed. I really find this actions very disruptive and an attempt to provoke an edit warring. Perhpas it should be noticed that this MasterCell was the one who firstly asked if the topic ban for euthanasia could apply for eugenics and also for abortion. --  ClaudioSantos ¿?  18:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Just by way of correction, I did actually comment on my edit on talk page: . As for the rest, I'll leave you to it. MastCell Talk 19:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, you first deleted all my work, all the paragraphs and later you came into the already ongoing dicsussion. there was a concern on the weight, and one user proposed and reverted me to keep one paragraph. You just deleted all the paragraphs, thus against the current consensus of the other users. --  ClaudioSantos  ¿?  19:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * My suggestion is that you work on the section in your own userspace, maybe User:ClaudioSantos/Planned Parenthood History or something along those lines. Then you can make whatever changes you want without interference. You can also go back to an earlier revision in the original article, copy the information there, and paste it into your user subpage. Once you feel it's ready, my advice is to link to that page from the article talk page to discuss it. If you try to insert it back into the body of the article without discussion, you will almost undoubtedly be reverted, and with the 1RR restriction there won't be much you can do about it without risking a block.. --  At am a  頭 19:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well atama, but one user accepted to keep one of those paragraphs, not even that consensus was respected by MastCell. One thing is my disposal to discuss the changes, as I was doing, another thing is MasCell coming without any discussion to delete entirely the edits. Until now MastCell have not provided one single source not made one single concret proposal to include those contents. He just delete. And at any rate, encouraging me to discsuss but allowing other users to came to delete any edit they disagree is a double standar and does not help. LKet me ask a rethoric question atam: then should I delete all the article if I do not find it is ok? --  ClaudioSantos ¿?  19:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Now some parts were moved to Backgroud section. I hope it will help to resolve the thing. --  ClaudioSantos ¿?  19:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Blanking out the entire article would be disruption and would probably lead to a block. It would also not even be at all equivalent to what MastCell and Binksternet did in undoing your changes. The changes you made introduced a large amount of material, see to see all of the changes at once. Per WP:BURDEN, "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". If you want to implement the changes, you first need to gain consensus for the changes. So far, your strongest objection to their reverts is that you are working on the information and that the reverting of your changes is disruptive to that work. That is why I suggested taking it to your user space for now. Since there is now an additional "background" section, perhaps some of your proposed additional text might be accepted there. But first, do you understand the objections to your changes? Multiple people have objected based on WP:UNDUE, in that the sheer amount of information you are trying to add unbalances the article by spending too much time discussing something of relatively small importance compared to the rest of the article.


 * As a totally random example, look at the article for Tiger Woods. Under the "Background and family" section, it mentions that he was raised as a Buddhist. That's a perfectly relevant point to mention in his biography. Now imagine that someone decided to expand the information so that it took up a quarter of the article space. That would be devoting entirely too much of the article to an aspect of his biography that is far less important than what he is best known for (his golf career).


 * Keep in mind, I'm not telling you that I personally object to what you're trying to add to the Planned Parenthood article. I'm just attempting to clarify what the objections are, so that you can better come to a compromise. I don't see anyone saying that the information you're adding isn't accurate, or has no place at all, but just that there's just too much of it. If you could possibly condense it down to a much smaller size, maybe only a couple of sentences, that could be added to the Background section, you might be able to convince others to accept it. --  At am a  頭 20:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Attama, you should take a look at that discussion, to realize yourself if MastCell and other are really dispossed to find consensus. I will not try to convince you here, not even telling you that even the Background section, which was not my proposal, was reverted also, and that MastCell is now propossing to deal wiuth the content solely using a text from the own Planned Parenthood, a source from the own PP that actually I have referenced to contrast the scholars contents. And it is absurd that although finally various users agreed to keep at least one parragraph other users just delete and delte everything. --  ClaudioSantos ¿?  20:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The thing is that MastCell and others are the consensus. If you're the sole person trying to make changes and every other person objects, it's not going to happen. I've been on the other side of that situation myself where the changes I wanted were not accepted by others. When that happens you have to either come up with a different suggestion or give it up. That's how things are done at every article on Wikipedia. --  At am a  頭 20:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I hesitate to butt in, because I think Atama is giving you good advice, but I'm a little concerned. You said above that I proposed to solely use Planned Parenthood as a source (your emphasis). That is simply not true. As anyone can see, I listed three potential sources, including PP, The Means of Reproduction, and the NYU Sanger Papers Project. Even these three were not intended to be the Only Acceptable Sources, but rather a starting point for a source-based (as opposed to personalized) discussion. It's hard to reach a consensus, or even hold a productive discussion, in an atmosphere where one's posts are misrepresented in this fashion. MastCell Talk 21:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey Atama, I have to demand objectivity. I am not the sole person trying to make the changes. There are 4 other users than me who agreed to keep the one (1) paragraph. The UNDUE weight also can not be used any longer as an excuse, as the thing was reduced to one single paraghraph, which mentions eugenics solely one time, between other influences, all of them solely listed. And that paragraph is referenced in an scholar work written by a well known historian Donald T. Critchlow. --  ClaudioSantos  ¿?  21:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well that's good, then it comes down to nitpicking about details. If the others who agree with you can't come to an arrangement with those who disagree, then you might try an RFC, or take the matter to dispute resolution noticeboard. --  At am a  頭 21:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Atama: we are already in that. What I was asking you was to at least give at least similar advices to those other users, like MastCell and Falcon8765, who instead of discuss just first reverted all the other users. You as an admin can not encourage the poeple to resolve a dispute just encouraging one side to discuss while letting the other side to revert and avoid any consensus. We reduced the thing to one single paragraph but now the discussion seems absurd as their point is that even a single paragraph is UNDUE weight. So for them the nothing is the only due weight. That is absurd for an issue which is even mentioned by the own Planned Parenthood. --  ClaudioSantos  ¿?  21:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can actually. Per WP:BURDEN (which I mentioned before), the burden is on those who wish to add or restore information (in other words, you and those who agree with you). WP:BRD also support that assertion (where one person, such as yourself, boldly inserts new material, another person reverts it, and then a discussion occurs). I see plenty of discussion coming from those opposed to you. To be perfectly honest, you are doing an incredibly poor job on the talk page of the article. For example, you can see MastCell suggesting a plan to include the eugenics information and agreement to discuss and compromise on the information. You follow up with  which is frankly a falsehood, stating that "it seems MastCell and others wants nothing to be mentioned at all". What I see from you is a complete unwillingness to follow our usual dispute resolution procedures, to attack other editors with completely unfounded claims, and to generally disrupt what could otherwise be a productive discussion. I see no reason to give warnings to other editors at all. I think I've been fair to you, I tried to stand up for you here when others accused you of sockpuppetry, 1RR violation, and a violation of your topic ban. But I can't support what you're doing right now on the PP talk page. I think you should either make a greater effort to work with other editors properly and discuss the content rather than the perceived motives and misdeeds of everyone else, or take a break from the article while others work out the conflict in your absence. --  At am a  頭  21:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well Atama you should chill out. You are not being fair, not in this question. Saying that I am doing an incredibly poor job, is completely unfair. As it was demanded for those who opposed the thing, I have looked for and provided more than 5 scholar sources and even quoted them, even the PP source was firstly provided by me, and I left aside any author claimed to be biased. The paragraphs I have added to the article was precisely an strong effort in response to those users, one of them precisely MastCell, who rejected to include a single see-also link to Eugenics, as they proposed to deal the thing directly in the article, so I did. Then they complainted because of the weight, so I have accepted the way some users reduced the thing to one paragraph. And perhaps it was a mistakle to remark MastCell, but certainly there are still some users insisting to not include nothing at all. That is not a disposal to achieve a consensus, one of this users, Roscele first rejected the inclution of the single see-also link and she asked to deal with the thing in a paragraph in the article, now that I did so, she also want the paragraph out. That is absurd and that obviously break any patience. To that you should add that I have never heard not even one minimmum comment or complaint from any body warning those users who accused other editors (not solely me) of having an agenda, or pushing their own politics, religions, etc. None word against those users suggesting that "according to our logic, we have to go to the Catholics article to include links to terrorism", etc. That sort of things are provokative and does not help. and does not help one being always the reproached despite of any effort to reason. And I repeat, that sort of things break any patience. I was just demanding you to keep an eye on this because later on it will be easy to say that I am the one not helping, but perhpas it is too late as you already told it to me. --  ClaudioSantos ¿?  22:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see anyone complaining about agendas in the current PP discussion except yourself. Now, I have seen a few people suggesting that you might have an agenda, and my response was that we should judge you by your actions and not speculate on the reasons for your actions. I said so on my user talk page above when people asked whether you might be violating your topic ban by participating at articles relating to abortion, Planned Parenthood, and eugenics. Whatever the reason for it, you've been very combative on that talk page and have done a lot to sabotage your position. --  At am a  頭 22:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Then I will try to not sabotage my position. It was a fair job to stop those attempts to punish me atb the ANI, based on inferences on my alleged motivations and positions. --  ClaudioSantos ¿?  23:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And I will also try not to seem too "idiotic" or shall I consider to abort myself from this as I was diagnosed as such by Mrs.Margaret Sanger --  ClaudioSantos ¿?  23:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That comment from Roscelese was definitely uncivil. --  At am a  頭 00:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I also find this sort of [comment referring to my alleged limited understanding of english very uncivil. This is not the first time some users use that sort of comments against some user (not solely me). It is also a way to deviate the attention from the content discussed to the editor. It must stop. -- [[User:ClaudioSantos| ClaudioSantos ]] ¿? 18:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Third Wave
hey i thought i was improving wikipedia by adding the third wave .. guess not. dont know wht the problem was, dont care either. thanks for deleting it. its more about making delete happy people feel good about themselves after all. ps.. what the hell is Kangaroo Island? that wasn't even on the page. have fun, i wont be adding anything else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freq32 (talk • contribs) 05:26, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

 * Thanks! Cupcakes are nomnom-able. --  At am a  頭 22:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Skulls Unlimited International
I noticed you deleted it then resored it to work on it. Any its on my to do list let me know if you need any help with it.-- Dch eagle  00:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'd appreciate it. Basically, I deleted it because it's promotional enough to meet our deletion requirements at WP:CSD. But I had remorse afterward. It was featured on Dirty Jobs, it has a good number of references... I think it's salvageable. So I was going to try to clean up the language so it doesn't seem so fluffy. Frankly, I don't want it to be deleted. --  At am a  頭 00:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I take a look and see what I can do.-- Dch eagle  00:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Mactech
Can you explain to me why mactech distance education college was deleted. the template was similiar of those used on other colleges. why is me writing a artical on a college i went to advertising. can you please explain this. compare that site to that of the page of nova scotia community college. NSCC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ptheriault1978 (talk • contribs) 12:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Asking for guidance - does an indefinite ban have to remain unless the editor himself appeals it?
Hi Atama - can you take a look at the indefinite block which was applied to Bendykes account in 2009, the notice of which appears on his user page and talk page.

It seems to me that it was a very excessive action for this editor to apply an indefinite block, without any prior warning or guidance, on the same day that a new editor starts to contribute. The account shows 7 edits on one day, and on one of those (1:32 am) the new editor went over the line by trying to include the details of his website. He probably didn't realise that was against WP policy. The other edits were not too bad really, they corrected some false information and replaced links to works that are no longer available with links to his own works which had just become available. They could have been wikified quite easily, to make sure there was no tone of self-promotion.

Dr Benjamin Dykes is hugely respected for making available English translations of important historical texts that have not been available to English readers before (important Latin and Arabic works). He clearly opened an account in his own name and should not, I believe, be made to suffer the professional embarrassment of having a WP spammer warning attached to his real name for making what were probably good faith edits. With a little guidance I am sure there would have been no further problems and that his contributions would have been very valuable. The last edit shows that he was willing to contribute useful editorial information.

Dr Dykes has an international reputation for his specialist knowledge of historical astrology and I would like to create a WP page about him, and was going to email and ask him if he would provide a photograph for Wikimedia commons. Having seen this I now feel a bit awkward. I note the banning editor was not an admin and wondered if you would agree that the instant, indefinite ban was excessive. If so, can it be ended, or at least can the notice to be removed? I doesn't feel right to me - surely WP is not about slamming people down and shaming people with professional reputations who have naively failed to appreciate the benefits that come with using a pseudonym. Hope you don't mind taking a quick look at this. Regards, -- Zac  Δ talk! 10:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * First of all, Blueboy96 may not be an administrator today, after being recalled, but he certainly was at the time, since Blueboy96 was the person who blocked the account! (Look at the contributions of the editor to see who blocked him). The notice on Bendykes's user talk page is not a ban notice, it's a block notice, and it's for his benefit, because if he wants to be unblocked he'll have to make the request himself and the block notice explains how to make that request. As to the original block, I think it's completely valid. You said that on one edit the he went over the line to include the details of his web site, but that's not true. Every edit he made was self-promotional, take a look at his history. We have a guideline for such behavior, see WP:COS. Not only were the edits self-promotional, but from what I can see they added nothing of value to any of the articles, except for unreferenced information (which actually removed a reference that was previously there).  edit also removed references from an article, without explanation, where he had previously added his own book as a reference. I like to think that I try to be welcoming to subject matter experts, but when a person comes to Wikipedia for the sole purpose of self-promotion, I think we can do without his contributions. If he has an interest in contributing again, he should make a proper unblock request, and explain how he will help Wikipedia and no longer simply promote himself (if someone helped familiarize him with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines that might be of help). --  At am a  頭  16:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Here's why I see it differently, looking on this from the outside but with some knowledge of the subject matter:
 * Edit 1 - incorrect information is removed that states that only one text from the 9th century scholar Masha'allah has been translated and made available in English, and which includes a link to the website of that translator where the work is sold. Highly relevant information is added to say that, actually, 10 works have recently been translated and made available in English, and adds details of where the information can be found. A COI gets proposed from the start but I can't see the basis of it. This is really relevant information that belongs on the page about Masha'allah. Imagine if this were the page of Aristotle, and someone stated that only one work was available in English - obviously it would need correcting with details of the other texts available. So this edit is legit as I see it, and it was wrong to assume a COI in that.
 * Edit 2 - same situation here: on the page of Sahl ibn Bishr it is highly relevant information to add that five famous historical texts have now been translated into English. Yes, I know it looks self-promotional because he mentions himself, but at the end of the day this is information that any encyclopedic resource would expect to include.
 * Edit 3 - bad mistake, he adds his website info into the text. But did he understand? He is a new editor, someone should have simply reverted that and anything similar, and left an explanation on his talk page with a friendly warning.
 * Edit 4 - his link was already on the page; he corrected the title and added that this (huge 10 volume) text was translated by him into English for the first time in 2007. I have a copy of this work, it runs to 1487 pages. We are not talking about someone who just did a bit of translation and wants to self-promote - the significance of the work he has done in translating Bonatti's most famous collection of works is massive.
 * Edit 5 - he wiki-links his name... (OK, so he is guilty of expecting to have a page about himself ... He certainly qualifies to have one).
 * Edit 6 - he removes two links to other (small) treatises being sold on another site. This looks bad from the outside, but the situation here (well known in the astrological community) is that the author of those translations, Robert Zoller, has distanced himself from that site and the company - he claims they use his materials without authorisation. I'm sure this wasn't a selfish act but the protection of Zoller's interests.  They are close colleagues and Dykes promotes Zoller on his own website.
 * Edit 7 - this is where you say he added information but took out an existing reference. He did this quite rightly because the information he replaced was patently wrong and based on an unreliable source. Sasha Fenton is well known as a popular media astrologer - she is not qualified to act as a source on astrology in medieval Islam! That's why the information was wrong. He replaced it with accurate information and there was no self-promotion there.


 * I'm not going to contact Dykes about this - it just struck me as an extreme reaction to a situation that could have been handled much better than it was. I'm pretty certain that the only thing needed here was a warning and a bit of guidance. What I don't like is to see someone with a good reputation being labelled as a spammer so publicly. Is it necessary for those notices to remain on that account now that it is obviously dead?  Can I remove them - perhaps stating that I have removed notices which are visible in the history - or would it be violating a WP policy if I did that? (Sorry, to give you all this to read, BTW.  I trust your judgement which is why I'm asking). Cheers, --  Zac  Δ talk! 19:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * By coincidence, the author of these works happens to be Dykes. If you can't see the basis of the COI, let me link it again: WP:COS. We allow people to reference themselves, but not extensively (and in this case, it was done exclusively). We also ask of the editor that they "should not place undue emphasis on your work, giving proper due to the work of others". A person who only adds their own work, and removes that of others, most certainly is in violation of that guideline. Unfortunately, as great as Dr. Dykes might be in the academic world, his actions were most clearly those of an editor who was acting with a conflict of interest to promote his own work. Maybe that wasn't his intent, though the only way I can read intent when a person has not made any communication via talk pages or edit summaries is by reviewing his actions. It's a grey area whether or not we allow people to remove active block notices from their own user talk page, there is a discussion about this that didn't get a good resolution. But when it comes to removing such notices from others' pages, our guideline is clearer, we're not supposed to. --  At am a  頭 19:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I would have thought the policy given on the WP:COS page made this one cloudy, given what I've pointed out; and the bottom line being (for me) that no attempt was made to warn or inform. But fair enough - it's a two year old situation and I guess I just see this from a different perspective than others hold.I'm deleting vandalism on IP edits almost daily, but always give them a first level warning even though it's clear the edit was made with the intention of being disruptive. (Also, BTW, I know it took me a while before I realised what talk-pages were for :))  Thanks for your help in clarifying the policy. I've asked - got my answer, so I can put this to bed in my head. Cheers again, --  Zac  Δ talk! 20:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll tell you this much, if he were to return, make an unblock request, and were to show a willingness to abide by WP:COI and WP:SPAM I'd be more than happy to unblock him. I'd also make sure that he knows how and why to use edit summaries, that may have helped him before as well. --  At am a  頭 20:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'm not sure it would be appropriate for me to contact him about this because it's a bit awkward and I don't know him, but there is an editor here that probably would know him so I'll suggest he takes a look at this discussion. Seems fair. Glad I asked because I very nearly went ahead and deleted the notice myself this morning - not realising that it had been done by an administrator and knowing how 'bold' we're entitled to be. Fortunately I hestitated ... -- Zac  Δ talk! 20:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It might be a bit of a WP:BEANS violation to mention this, but I doubt anyone would have noticed if you had, I'm not sure how many people keep an eye on indefinitely-blocked user talk pages that haven't edited for over a year. On the other hand, if someone did, you might at least be given a stern warning. So it's best that you asked. --  At am a  頭 21:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

user talk delete
your stance doesn't make much sense. The logic is that all the old edits would be deleted... but they are still on my talk page. It was moved. I just want the move to be removed, though a delete does not do that, so I'm not really sure what I do want (in terms of what you can do) but changing my name to make it look less like a real name isn't very helpful if I'm just adding a name, right? 018 (talk) 19:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Is there a bot or something that can update all my old sigs? 018 (talk) 20:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope. And it wouldn't do much good if there was, honestly. People could still look in the history of any discussion that you contributed to in the past to see your old signature. That info is on Wikipedia forever, essentially. The best you can do now is just go by this identity now and hope nobody cares enough to dig into your past contributions. If you want to completely cut all connections to your former account, you'd need to follow the guidelines at WP:CLEANSTART and create a brand new account. Note that in doing so, you'd lose credit for the thousands of contributions you've made to Wikipedia, and if you continue to edit the same topics as before it's possible for people to figure out who you were. --  At am a  頭 20:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think the latter point and the fact that I have an established edit summary and talk page style mean that the last point makes a clean start moot. I worry more about appearing to be a sock puppet--not in the sense of getting in trouble but in the sense of being annoying to other editors. 018 (talk) 20:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If anyone ever accuses you, all you have to say is that you changed your name and that should be the end of it. Lots of people change their names, even I did, so it shouldn't bother anyone. --  At am a  頭 21:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Robert Lee King
Hi Atama,

I'm unsure why you deleted the entry for Robert Lee King, who is the director of Psycho Beach Party and the new film, Bad Actress.

Can you explain what the copyright issue is that's noted in our deletion message, and whatever may be needed to complete the listing differently in order to get it on Wikipedia? We are posting text that Mr. King has approved (essentially his bio) and linking to other names and films that are listed on Wikipedia already. Those entries (Psycho Beach Party, etc) link to him and thus he should have a Wikipedia page.

Thanks, JordanJordan.boughrum (talk) 00:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The copyright issues come from the fact that you completely copied from this press release. That's a copyright violation and if it's repeated, it can lead to you being blocked. That's aside from the fact that we don't allow advertisements on Wikipedia, which is all that article was, since it was literally a word-for-word copy of a press release. --  At am a  頭 01:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response. This is not a press release, it happens to be a bio that we wrote for Bob that was used in the press release (which we also wrote) that you sighted. This is also NOT an advertisement, Bob happens to be the director of a cult film (Psycho Beach Party) and his name is linked to a blank page on Wikipedia. This is not an ad - it's his details (the bio) of his professional career as a director. If you need us to write a whole new bio then we will, however, this is not clear anywhere on Wikipedia. I work directly with Bob King and he has granted me permission to use this bio for purposes like this. People use Wikipedia as an information resource for most things, they should be able to find information about Bob if they are looking for him and he already has a link to a blank page and we're simply trying to make that not so. Please advise me on how to move forward with this issue. jordanJordan.boughrum (talk) 17:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Articles should be written in your own words, that's implied in the link I provided above (WP:COPYVIO) as well as at the Terms of use page. If you are the original copyright owner of the information you wish to add, you need to contact our Volunteer Response Team before you put it in the article, instructions on how to do so can be found at WP:DCP. However, the information that you had added before would probably not be fully acceptable due its tone; see WP:NPOV for Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view. Language like "overnight cult sensation" is not considered to be neutral, and information about where his works can be viewed or purchased resembles advertising. The last issue is that you need to find reliable sources that can verify the information that you're adding, we consider this especially critical with articles that are biographies of living people. Being able to find such sources helps show that the subject is notable.


 * If you need general assistance in getting started with the article, I recommend that you use the Article Wizard. --  At am a  頭 19:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Alberto Portugheis
Hi. You recently deleted the subject article. On its author's behalf, I would appreciate it if you would userfy it to User:Normaprocter/Alberto Portugheis and merge its history with that of User:Normaprocter (due to a copypaste), which probably wouldn't need a redirect. See also User talk:Jeff G.. Thanks! —  Jeff G. ツ  15:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC) —  Jeff G. ツ  15:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Mitchell Muncy for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mitchell Muncy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Mitchell Muncy (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Soonersfan168 (talk) 20:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/La goutte de pluie
Dodgy. There's consensus for the topic-ban; Rfc/U -> Arb will take months, years.

This is pretty typical; it's so extraordinarily hard to get action about any admin who clearly breaches the rules. And, that position is exacerbated by the difficulty - e.g. I, personally, can't be arsed to pursue it. It does, however, add just a bit to my chagrin with the system. 01:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said there are two issues, her conduct as an admin, and her conduct as an editor. If she abused her position as an administrator, and that allegation has come up more than once by a number of people, then the topic ban won't address that at all. Going by pure numbers (which certainly wasn't the only consideration I took) it was 9 for, 5 against, which might be considered a weak consensus in some discussions but not enough on its own for me to initiate a topic ban. Also, one of the 9 supporters only supported a temporary topic ban rather than the indefinite proposal, so you might even consider it 8.5 to 5. I took my time before making the decision, and looked carefully at everything everyone said, including what was said on the rest of the page. I do appreciate your feedback, however, and I've always respected your opinion. --  At am a  頭 02:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I do understand. You're quite right. It's just frustrating, because it means admins "get away" with blue murder, for years; admittedly partially because folks like myself cannot be bothered with months of RfC, months of ARB, and so forth. That's not your fault though, and I thank you for explaining.  Chzz  ► 02:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Despite being an admin myself, I've supported a number of measures to try to make it easier for the community to remove the bit when an admin steps wrong. I wish we could come up with something less clumsy than layer after layer of measures that just serve to build up a case for ArbCom months down the road. I was pleased to see recent changes that allow us to automatically desysop inactive people, and to allow crats to remove the bit, which I think at least shows that winds are changing. I even think that it will be better for admins if there is less resentment for people who have a kind of "shield" against consequences for bad behavior.


 * I don't know if the topic ban would have had better support if La goutte de pluie wasn't an admin. Sometimes the bit puts a target on your back, her actions may have had less attention to begin with if she hadn't also used the tools in ways that caused people to object. But maybe people who would have spoken up in the ban discussion refrained from doing so because she's an admin. I just don't know. --  At am a  頭 02:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand, and sympathize, and...can we share a "meh"? I don't have answers. I just...I don't know any more. Meh. Sorry.  Chzz  ► 02:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
OpenInfoForAll (talk) 05:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Mark Lemon (author)
What's our latest policy/guideline/thoughts/whatever we call it on paid editing? The above page is written by the business agent of the subject who also used the page to promote himself with numerous links. I'm despamming little by little, but with the back and forth that happened on paid editing I have no clue what our stance is, and you're the COI guru. cheers. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  10:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The community has gone back and forth about this issue, and I believe the most concrete wording we have on the subject is at WP:PAY. This was after failed attempts to have WP:PAID become its own policy or guideline. It's now just a paragraph in the COI guideline, but since it is part of the guideline, and has been there for awhile now without controversy, it has a bit of weight. In particular, that part of the guideline states that paid editors are "very strongly encouraged to avoid editing Wikipedia in areas where there is a conflict of interest that may make your edits non-neutral (biased)". --  At am a  頭 10:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I was hoping we'd gotten stricter. I'll despam as much as I can and alert the editor to WP:PAY and if needed move it over to WP:COIN later. cheers. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  11:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the clarification re: Sockpuppetry & IPs. -  Ro   Bo   Tam   ice 00:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It was my pleasure. Good luck with that issue, it can be difficult to deal with someone who edits anonymously and can hop from one IP to another at whim. It's like trying staple a blob of Jello to a tree. --  At am a  頭  01:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Bacmac
I don't know what to think of this guy. Looking through his talk page and edit history, it looks like he stirs up trouble at least 70% of the time that he's editing. Most notably, whenever he's called out on something (adding a spam link, section blanking), he thinks/says that he's being personally attacked by the reverting editor. The history of his userpage shows some interesting information as well. I can't decide if this was intentional or not but he also copied all of COIN and pasted it in with his response effectively doubling every post (which I've since cleaned up). I also find it odd that he created an account and almost immediately jumped into nominating articles for deletion, citing WP:SOCK, WP:POV, WP:VANITY, Libel and WP:NPA on his sixth edit. He's only edited 13 times since the beginning of 2010 so I'm not sure if any action is necessary unless there's socking going on but I don't see any evidence of that right now. Any thoughts?  Ol Yeller Talktome 10:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Eh, I don't find it odd. He created an account because he wanted to nominate an article for deletion, and that article was probably for a rival martial art style (I assume that Bacmac is a student/fan of Choi Kwang Do). If you suspect that he showed an unusually high level of sophistication for a new editor in starting an AfD so early in his time at Wikipedia, look at . :) I see someone who spent some time looking at our policies and guidelines, enough to know to cite POV and vanity and such, but still didn't quite know how to get it started properly. Also, you won't be able to see his deleted edits, but he put a speedy deletion template on the article's talk page right after adding the AfD template to the main page. The AfD itself wasn't inappropriate, I see a number of concerns due to self-promotion and lack of notability on the deleted article's talk page for more than a year before it was deleted, and of course the AfD succeeded.


 * He's disruptive, but it seems to be due to a misunderstanding of how things work more than malicious intent. He hasn't put forth the energy to learn the ropes of Wikipedia and possibly wouldn't have the patience to. He hasn't stepped over the line and isn't very active so I don't see any reason to sanction him. --  At am a  頭 18:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * That all makes sense. I didn't really think he was socking unless he was pulling an I'm-so-good-I-seem-bad kind of socking.  I just couldn't tell if he's intentionally trying to cause trouble.  The edit where he doubled all of COIN seems innocent enough.  The more he's around, the more I think he's just an intelligent and intense guy plowing through something he intends to do which may sound bad but I honestly don't think it's bad.  I've gone through a decent amount of his contributions and the history of the pages he's edited to see if there's anything that needs cleaned up (from him or anything that he was legitimately combating) and can't really find anything.  In the end, I think the articles he concerned about are OK right now which is all I really care about.  Thanks for the insight.  I find it valuable.  Ol Yeller  Talktome 23:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I used to be a martial artist. I studied Shotokan as a child, and then later spent years training in Shaolin Kung Fu (my grandmaster was Jwing-Ming Yang, he trained my sifu). I know how passionate people can be about the style they spend so much time trying to learn. --  At am a  頭 02:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
I recently learned that I have the 9th most-watched user page on Wikipedia! I should sell space on it for advertising. Thanks for the speedy response. I really appreciate it.  Will Beback   talk    08:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem, I was just cleaning up the mess. Glad to help. :) --  At am a  頭 09:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Potential Problem
If your still mentoring User:Fountainviewkid I'd like to point you too Talk:Southern Adventist University where hes starting run into potential problems, one being WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:BF, and other bad editing behaviors when dealing with new editors to "his" pages, and definitely not WP:AGF when it comes to IP editors. — raeky  t  18:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * IP editors who could possibly be socks, I am suspicious of. I am not accusing the IP's of anything specific, but I am noting their similarities to a certain banned user. As for WP:NPA, isn't that the pot calling the kettle black? Raeky has made accusations about editing motivations as "marketing" and other false statements. Oh and there's no such thing as "his" pages though there are some I have "watchlisted". I have also pointed out that Rakey isn't exactly the greatest for WP:NPOV due to this admittance and WP:FRINGE accusation.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * An objective read through the comments on both sides and the ongoing ANI topic about your behavior related to this is all that is necessary to see what happened. — raeky  t  04:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * A couple of things. FVK is having trouble assuming good faith from IPs because the same IP-hopping editor who was banned from Wikipedia has been continually returning to the same articles over and over again. And at this point, I don't blame FVK at all. That doesn't give him carte blanche to attack any IP but I don't see it this way. This is why the article is currently semi-protected for months.


 * On the other hand, I will agree that FVK, you are letting your composure slip on the article's talk page. For example: "I'm pretty close to violating WHAT Mojo????? WP:NPA? Really?" That looks like something written out of anger. Getting upset is natural, but when that happens you have to step away for a bit to calm down before talking. Believe it or not, I have the same problem too sometimes, but I've learned to not write when I'm mad. --  At am a  頭 06:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Another one
Apparently this is going to be a thing for him another obvious sock on the Korea Language/Russia thing.--Crossmr (talk) 23:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * and another on AN/I so you don't miss it. Might be worth running a CU to see if there is a common IP that could be blocked for account creation.--Crossmr (talk) 15:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well when I block these socks, an autoblock is included which will block the account's IP for a duration (I think a couple of weeks). The person creating these accounts is changing IPs to get around that (either intentionally or unintentionally). Due to this person's persistence, I'm going to semi-protect the article for a week (I was hoping to avoid that). --  At am a  頭 16:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

This is ridiculous
I'm not FOJ. I'm telling the truth. How many people live in New Jersey? I've never lived in Montclair. I don't care that the geolocator locates to that town. This is ridiculous. I moved to New Jersey from Florida last January. You're blocking the wrong person. The entire community is against FOJ returning to Wikipedia. Not me. This is an outrage. Get your facts straight before blocking innocent people. This isn't over. I promise you that. --64.71.153.58 (talk) 18:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sure I'll rue the day. --  At am a  頭 18:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Funny sarcasm, smartass. If you had a brain, you would realize that I'm not FOJ. Once again, get your facts straight before blocking the wrong person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.71.153.58 (talk) 18:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment, I'd totally forgottten to block you, since you're evading your block. That itself is a blockable offense on its own. --  At am a  頭 18:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

No problem my friend.
I no longer needed that IP. I have plenty of others. I like your snarky comments. They are funny. Have a great night. God bless. ;) --46.4.2.216 (talk) 20:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, at least I'm entertaining someone. Thanks for going to the effort to prove me right. --  At am a  頭 20:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * IP 46.4.2.216 listed at http://dnsbl.tornevall.org/ as a proxy. JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I figured as much. --  At am a  頭 20:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

COI/outing
Could you click through to the BLP mentioned in the evolution COI post and revdel the prod that was put on it please? There's some very outingish stuff in it. (being very generic here so it doesn't show up on searches for any of the involved terms.) Thanks, Kevin (talk) 22:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * A question; did you mean to contest the PROD itself, or just the outing? I can reinstate the proposed deletion with original timestamp and everything if you're not opposed to the deletion itself, I'll just be careful to avoid anything that might contain accusations that speculate on the author's identity. --  At am a  頭 22:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * More or less just the outing. I don't think the prod's reasoning was terribly good (not having a PhD is not a reason to delete an article,) but I have no doubt that the person doesn't meet the GNG or the academic notability guideline anyway.  Kevin (talk) 22:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed this discussion, and I have a request to make about it, if you don’t mind. Atama, since you’re an admin, would you mind looking at this AE thread and possibly posting something in the “results” section? One of the issues it involves (described in my own post there) is basically the same as the one you’ve been discussing at COIN.

This thread has been open since August 8th, but so far only one uninvolved admin has commented there, on August 9th. I think by now most of the people involved in this thread have given up on any decision ever being made in it, but I’m still holding out hope that somewhere on Wikipedia there might an admin who’s willing to examine it before it’s archived while still open. And since you’re already dealing with one of these issues in a different context, I thought you might be a little more likely than most admins to be willing to look at the discussion about this at AE also. --Captain Occam (talk) 02:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I noticed you answer to CarolMooredc here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#When_profession_trumps_wikipolicies and would to invite you to read the discussion which is something very different that what is asserted here by CarolMooredc. It was originally located here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Death_of_Caylee_Anthony:_Alleged_defamation_by_WP:RS. Unfortunately, I now notice that the discussion is (I think #44) which is no longer seen in the "Contents" box. I do not have the knowledge to find where it is now to comment further.

If fact, CarolMooredc reveals on the Article Talk page that she has also had legal experience and she stated that, in fact, she has helped in assisting Supreme Court Cases. That remark was on the Death of Anthony Talk Page and referred to on the noticeboard which I cannot find. I am still looking fot it and I will search every edit of hers until I find it.

She also tried to initiate another noticeboard on me here but one paragraph showed that her accusations were also false and it was archived but That discussion can still be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#User_talk:mugginsx  It is titled  User Mugginsx and is #7 is the "Contents" box. You are of course welcome to see my Talk Page where CarolMooredc accuses me of a Conflict of Interest when if fact she has made the same or similar remark about her "legal experience". I also note that I have said that I am "retired". Thank you. Mugginsx (talk) 14:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

As to a discussion about me I recently found
I noticed a discussion about me initiated by CarolMooredc and which you commented on here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#When_profession_trumps_wikipolicies Section entitled: When profession trumps wikipolicies. I would ask you please look here where I think you will find that she mistates me several times in her comments: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive130#Death_of_Caylee_Anthony:_Alleged_defamation_by_WP:RS. I would add that at exactly the same time (Check time stamps) as she is accusing me of a Conflict of Interest at that site she is also engaging me on my Talk Page below http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mugginsx
 * Conflict of Interest with paralegal job?
 * Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#What_is_a_conflict_of_interest.3F reads: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a vanity press or a forum for advertising and promoting yourself or your ideas. As such it should contain only material that complies with its content policies, and Wikipedians must place the interests of the encyclopedia first. Any editor who gives priority to outside interests may be subject to a conflict of interest.
 * You have repeatedly brought up your close ties to the legal world to try to win arguments about Wikipedia policies, often in a condescending fashion, to the point I felt forced to mention my own former employ as a legal secretary. Now you have done it here at this diff at the BLP Noticeboard writing "As a paralegal" - as if your being one is sufficient to trump Wikipedia policies and end any discussion at the noticeboard. I have to wonder if you do in fact advertise your editing wikipedia on legal articles among your professional colleagues as a point of self-promotion, and that is why you are so adamant that your reading of defamation laws trump Wikipedia policies. Please read WP:Conflict of interest and consider its points. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

As an aside, she also stated on the Talk:Death of Caylee Anthony here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Death_of_Caylee_Anthony&diff=440478361&oldid=440478340  where she stated:


 * "You didn't disprove one thing I said and just made a lot of unspecified allegations. Having been a legal secretary at some big DC law firms for 20 years and personally on my own time and found representation for and aided a winning case at the Supreme Court, I have some idea of legal matters. So stop chastising me in a WP:Uncivil manner, which as others have commented repeatedly smacks of WP:OWN". CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I would ask you please look here where I think you will find that she mistates me several times in her comments: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive130#Death_of_Caylee_Anthony:_Alleged_defamation_by_WP:RS.
 * You have repeatedly brought up your close ties to the legal world to try to win arguments about Wikipedia policies, often in a condescending fashion, to the point I felt forced to mention my own former employ as a legal secretary. Now you have done it here at this diff at the BLP Noticeboard writing "As a paralegal" - as if your being one is sufficient to trump Wikipedia policies and end any discussion at the noticeboard. I have to wonder if you do in fact advertise your editing wikipedia on legal articles among your professional colleagues as a point of self-promotion, and that is why you are so adamant that your reading of defamation laws trump Wikipedia policies. Please read WP:Conflict of interest and consider its points. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

How can she accuse me while all the time she has stated she too is a paralegal (albiet in a since deleted remark on the article talk page, (the location of which I already gave you) and has pushed her viewpoints as well?

I noticed that CarolMooredc has been blocked in the past and even though she was blocked for comments about another editor, that editor eventually retired. I do not wish to retire or to have anyone editor harass me into retiring. As far as I am concerned the information given to me not to respond anymore to her is good advice and I am trying to take it, but it seems that every week, another comment or noticeboard or discussion pops up which mention me.

I would ask you to please take this all into consideration and if you have any other questions, or if I have explained myself inadequately, please do not hesitate to ask me. I am in good standing on Wikipedia and have never been blocked or been mentioned on any noticeboard or discussion until by CarolMooredc. Mugginsx (talk) 17:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll look into this. Right now I'm trying to wrap my head around an arbitration enforcement request that someone asked of me, and I don't get into AE very often so it's taking up all my attention. --  At am a  頭 18:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Take your time and thank you for responding. Mugginsx (talk) 18:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I finished with the arbitration enforcement issue, it wasn't as complicated as it seemed at first. So I can try to give some attention to this issue.


 * I think that yourself and Carol are doing the same thing, but coming at it from different angles. And that might make all the difference here. I did let Carol know that it's not considered a COI to mention your real-life profession in discussions, especially if it's relevant to the discussion you're having. I myself work in computer and network support in real life, and mention that on my user page, though for some reason I almost never edit articles related to my profession. That's not due to any conscious decision, I just get drawn to other kinds of articles for some reason. But if I was in a discussion regarding, say, laser printers, I might mention what I do for a living to back up an assertion.


 * There are some things that you should keep in mind, however. First, you are involved in the legal profession, and have commented on defamation/libel. I don't see that you've done anything wrong up to this point, but if you aren't already, you should take care to be familiar with WP:NLT. If you say, for example, that you're a paralegal and that somebody has written something that is libelous, that could be interpreted as a legal threat. Wikipedia's policy is to block editors who have given the impression that legal action is being taken against other editors or Wikipedia itself, and to not remove the block until the editor makes an unambiguous statement that no legal action is being taken. This isn't to punish someone, or even to dissuade a person from taking legal action, but it's to prevent a person from using the legal action (intentionally or unintentionally) as a tool to scare people into acting as the editor wishes (that's often referred to as the "chilling effect"). So again, just be careful, you don't need to precede every opinion with a clarification that no legal threat is intended, but try not to give an impression that it is.


 * The other thing is that people claim lots of things about themselves on Wikipedia. Due to the nature of Wikipedia and the internet at large, most people (myself included) use pseudonyms to protect their own privacy. When people do so, others can and often will doubt the veracity of claims about yourself. You have acknowledged this yourself, you stated on your user page, "I can pretty much say that I am anyone or anything on this page, and there is little or no proof that it is or is not true". The same applies when you claim to be a paralegal, or I claim to have an A+ certification. That doesn't mean you can't claim it, but just remember that it won't always hold weight with everyone. Some people choose to waive their right to privacy by declaring exactly who they are, Carol being one of those people. I usually don't recommend that someone does that, but if it's very important that your professional credentials are taken seriously, you may want to.


 * The last thing I wanted to mention was specifically how you mention your profession. If you say what you do in passing, such as mentioning "by the way, I'm a paralegal" or saying "I learned while working as a paralegal that...". But if you begin a statement by saying, "As a paralegal..." it gives the impression that you are acting in an official capacity. I believe that is the main thing that Carol was objecting to above (this is only speculation on my part, I can't read her mind). There shouldn't be an issue with letting people know what you do, and you've noted that Carol has done so as well, but again it's just the way that you mention it that might be off-putting.


 * So that's all. Again I don't think COI is a problem for either of you. --  At am a  頭 20:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for answer, information and advice. I can relate to what you said about not editing on article concerning your expertise. I have never edited on a legal article, except this one, and then reluctantly because a certain editor stated they wanted to acheived GA status and for the article to be as accurate as possible.  I have stated many times there and on the noticeboard that I am "retired".  I have no affiliation with any legal issues either as an advisor or in any other capacity since I retired.  Truth be told, it was a very stressful job and I am glad to be rid of it.  I have edited to medieval articles entirely (with the present exception).  I personally do not care what people believe or do not believe about my former profession and after CarolMooredc bringing me to two noticeboards and mentioning me in a discussion board (all of which I have indicated) I am anxious to get back to historical articles. I would be uncertain of Carol's claim of legal experience since she seemed to find the simpliest terms confusing, something other editors on the article, with no claimed legal expertise, did not find confusing. There are many examples.  She also never mentions her legal expertise on any of her off Wiki websites. She also did not know that grand jury testimony is secret and wondered where to find it.  On another matter, I also find it interesting, that she had also made mention of "off site affiliations and on site editing" with regard to COI issues when she in fact has a personal blog and two other websites, some of which contains photos and information on her political activism while editing on articles that are related to the subjects of her activism.  I have numerous times said I would no longer respond to this editor on advice given to me by veteran editors, but it is hard when I am forced to answer on noticeboards.  Perhaps that is the intent.  The reason I do not use my real name is because once my identity has been stolen and another time, my computer was hacked.  I had been given advice at that time to only give limited information about myself anywhere online. That is all I have to say.  Obviously I will take your expert advice and read the guideline you mentioned.  Once again, I thank you. Mugginsx (talk) 20:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Mail
 Will Beback   talk    21:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

RfC User name
Since you commented on my general description of this user name, you might be interested in looking at Requests_for_comment/User_names. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You're my mentor and this isn't good. Please advise.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * ...and to show how much your help is needed, it has been recommended that FVK self-impose a "do not edit" while some things are clarified with you ... see my sane proposal on the EW noticeboard. I know we have no time limits, but your help is highly appreciated! ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 15:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I had drafted up a closure for WP:AN3. Since I noticed your recent comment I though I would hold off and get your comments first:
 * "*Result: Blocked one month. It is clear that Fountainviewkid edit warred on this article, and the discussion here is about what block or agreement might be sufficient to keep the problem from recurring. Generally cases at 3RR are closed by a single admin. FVK has been here since 2008. His edits are a long-running problem so all the newbie excuses should be exhausted by now. Mentorship has not worked. Given the continued disruption at Southern Adventist University we should have a long block or an ironclad deal. If a review of the block length is desired, I suggest that editors open a thread at ANI. Another option is that those who feel that an agreement might be reached should pursue that on the editor's talk page.  FVK has not given any clear agreement to a voluntary restriction. A site wide 1RR plus abstaining from Seventh Day Adventist articles for six months could be enough reason to lift the  block."
 * We don't usually leave 3RR cases hanging for a long time; some decision should be made. Thanks for any feedback on this plan. — EdJohnston (talk) 16:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sigh... You know I'm FVK's mentor, and if he gets blocked for edit-warring, that reflects poorly on me, because I've been trying to help him not engage in this kind of behavior. And of course I can't really help a person who is blocked, so it frustrates my efforts in that regard. Not to mention that when the last block occurred, FVK intended to leave Wikipedia for good although he was convinced not to, and I'm afraid that another block (especially of that length) will drive him away indefinitely. So any comment I make about the topic will be biased, and I would definitely prefer that he not be blocked.


 * But as I just discovered and disclosed on the 3RR page, he did violate 3RR, so I can't justifiably protest any sanction against him at this point. 3RR is a bright line, and a month block is a proper escalation based on his block history. I feel awful that all of this happened. --  At am a  頭 16:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I have agreed to the suggested sanctions that BWilkins and Kuru both posted. They involve either 1RR or 0RR. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 17:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Does this mean you will follow a 0RR on all articles related to Seventh Day Adventism for six months? This means you will be unable to make any edit which is judged under the WP:3RR policy as being a revert. You should also agree to a 1RR on all other articles on Wikipedia for the same period of time. These restrictions would be entered at WP:RESTRICT. If you will agree to this plan, I believe that a block can be avoided. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I would agree to the suggestions posed, though I personally don't prefer the idea of the time period of 6 months. For me that would be a permanent defacto revert ban, which while I could see why some would argue for it, I don't think would be as productive. I would much rather like the idea of a "scaled" restriction where the limits decrease as the time passes. I think that would give me a chance to learn while still having the freedom to try and engage productively.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 17:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You can always try for a few months, and if no incidents occur, make a plea at WP:AN asking if the community feels that it's safe to loosen restrictions. There's no guarantee that they will, but who knows. The community even forgives people who were totally site-banned from time to time if the person can demonstrate that they are no longer causing problems. I would definitely recommend waiting a few months before trying anything like that, however. --  At am a  頭 17:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm a a little confused about the proposed sanction. It seems that it's saying that I would not even be allowed to edit the SAU page for 6 months, which would include even adding sources or citations. That's my number one page which would defacto give me the same level as an IP. I'm willing to do 0RR, but I still want to be able to add sources on the SAU talk page (just without making any reverts). Your thoughts?--Fountainviewkid (talk) 19:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Also 0RR is problematic for it would prevent me from doing actions like this. You may or may not know but I actually watch certain pages specifically for vandalism. I can show you a history of where I have helped on certain articles with this type of issue. That is why I would be fine with 0RR on SAU's page (it's semi-protected) but would still like 1RR access to combat vandals on other pages. I understand the point of the sanctions, but I don't want them to hamper me in doing what I have always done right. Hopefully this makes sense?--Fountainviewkid (talk) 19:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Vandalism reverts are pretty much always accepted no matter what. An edit like that, though, where the vandalism is questionable, might be best avoided. Look at WP:3RRNO for examples of exceptions to 3RR and should be exceptions to 0RR as well. But be careful about such things, note how in the policy it says "obviously" in bold text, so if you have even the slightest doubt that it is clear vandalism, don't risk it. Another example is if BelloWello's IP or sock makes an edit somewhere, technically you can revert such things since he is banned, but if you do so before someone else identifies him you'll also be taking a risk. You might, for example, be blocked unless someone else can vouch for you and point out that an IP or account belongs to a banned editor.


 * And just to clarify, 0RR doesn't mean zero edits, it means you can't make any edits that might be seen as reverts. Which will be hard, I know, you've already run into a problem now where you made edits that you didn't realize were reverts. The only advice I can offer is this... If you think there's a reasonable chance that someone might object to an edit you're about to make, bring it up on the article talk page first. And if you think that there's a chance that an edit might in some way be considered a revert, don't do it. If someone adds some text which is only halfway-accurate, and you fix the text and add a source to explain the correction, that's a borderline case that may or may not be considered a revert. It would be better to made an edit request on the article talk page, or leave a note with the person who added the text. It may seem like you have to walk on eggshells with these restrictions, and that's because you do. But it's the best way to win back the community's trust. --  At am a  頭 20:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm you still didn't clarify this line for me " User:Fountainviewkid is also hereby restricted to talkpage discussion only on the Southern Adventist University article for a period of 6 months"....does that mean I'm banned from editing the SAU article for 6 months? Even to add sources or make minor (non-revert) adjustments? I'm willing to do 0RR, but I'd like to still be able to edit, just not revert. I think the 0RR on SAU with the 1RR on everything else was to me probably the fairest, most realistic, and best option. But what is your feedback? I'm still debating my options. I supposed I could try it and if I don't like it and it gets too restrictive I could always have the option of leaving Wiki. Thankfully no one can place any restrictions on that! Your thoughts?--Fountainviewkid (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought you were referring to what was proposed on my talk page and your talk page. I didn't even see what was on the 3RR noticeboard. It looks like that proposal also adds an additional talk page ban for the SAU article, so you're right about that. --  At am a  頭 20:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Your thoughts/suggestions? Can it be modified slightly?--Fountainviewkid (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You can ask there if you think the 0RR restriction would be enough at that page as well, EdJohnston suggested above that it might be. I will admit, though, that it would be safer if you avoided editing that article completely since you've run into trouble there so often, so maybe it would be in your best interest to agree to it. It depends on what you're willing to accept. --  At am a  頭 20:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Zero edits are permitted to the article - limited to talkpage only. It appears to be non-negotiable from the discussion at AN/3RR.  Dude, I'm fricking going to the mat for you here, c'mon. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 21:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That restriction will still leave all other Adventist-related articles open to you, with a 0RR restriction, and 1RR to all other articles. Which again might be to your benefit. If you stick to the restrictions, you can't be accused of edit-warring. It might rankle to be constrained in that way, but it will still leave you many opportunities to participate in the areas with the most interest for you. Also, people who try to bait others into violating their restrictions are poorly received, which means that this could also serve as a kind of protection for you in some areas. --  At am a  頭 21:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
NW</b> ( Talk ) 20:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Arb
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, — <span style="font-family: Georgia, Garamond, serif;"> Kudu ~I/O~ 22:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I appreciate the notice. --  At am a  頭 23:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capildeo_family
--Restorationoffact (talk) 19:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)Restorationoffact--Restorationoffact (talk) 19:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC) This page you have deleted through error should be restored as was with Capildeo Family Tree from Pundit Capildeo and subsequent Capildeo family members. It contained verifiable information regarding the family tree of the Capildeo family of Trinidad and Tobago. More than that it was an important historical account for Trinidad and Tobago, and gave a snapshot of one family- A generational account: from immigration from East India though to modern day. I must say I am shocked that you didn't check certain references in the article before deleteing it. For example the original article mentioned Pundit Capildeo: It contained his faimly tree from his arrival to Trinidad and Tobago, his children,their marriages,and deaths,his grandchildren,and their marriages and deaths. What's more puzzling is it mentioned his legacy- an account of famous sons of the "Lion House" (Pundit Caplideo's ancestral home in Chaguanas, Trinidad and Tobago). The original article listed many Capildeo family members who have their own Wikipedia Pages: Rudranath Capildeo VS Naipaul What's more is the Lion House is such an important account of one family from East India to their arrival and establisment in Trinidad and Tobago is that the house is actually now part of the National Trust of Trinidad and Tobago and the Heritage Foundation I would hope that by reading the references I have provided which are accessible easily on the internet- that you will see the error of deleting the Wikipedia Page and restore it with original contents intact and as was, and leave it there for people to expand further and cite all the credible references to the Capildeo family (there are endless verifable resources available), therby contributing to the preservation of information regarding not only the Caplildeo family, but to honour Trinidadian people of East Indian descent with an invaluable and well preserved generational account of immigration from India in the late 1800's-early life in 1900's Trinidad- through to modern day- which is best illustrated by the previously deleted Capildeo family tree. --Restorationoffact (talk) 19:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)Restorationoffact--Restorationoffact (talk) 19:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The article was deleted through proposed deletion. Nobody objected to its deletion, including yourself, so the deletion wasn't an "error". However, if you want it restored, I'll do so. Proposed deletions can be restored at any time by request. --  At am a  頭 02:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Move request
Hello, I would like your help in the following since I am not to use my tools. Please move the page of Mary Hardy to something like "Mary Hardy (radio presenter)", because I would like to create a "Mary Hardy" disambiguation page which would include a redirected mentioned of María Cordero Hardy, a Puerto Rican scientist who is also known as Mary Hardy. Thank you. Tony the Marine (talk) 16:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I can do that, but is there a reason you can't move it yourself? I'm not saying WP:SOFIXIT, I'm wondering why you'd need administrator tools. Any editor can move a page as long as it isn't move-protected or they don't need to delete a page to make room for the one being moved. (I do appreciate you asking me when you suspect that you might need to use the tools, however.) --  At am a  頭 16:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it is because in the past some of my actions, which were made in good faith, have been misunderstood and have gotten me in "hot-water" that I prefer to consult you. It is better to be safe then sorry. Let me know if you make the move or rather that I do it. Tony the Marine (talk) 21:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You can always ask at WP:RM also, but what the heck, I'll do it. I've moved it to Mary Hardy (comedian). --  At am a  頭 21:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Tony the Marine (talk) 23:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Quoting you.
I'm quoting you, and I think it's probably good practice to tell you in case I've screwed it up. Failedwizard (talk) 16:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the notice, and you got my meaning correct. --  At am a  頭 17:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Personal information
Hi Atama. I saw this comment and felt it was close to being an attempt to out and at the least harassment based on speculation of a person's work place, so removed it and let the one editor named in the comment know about it. I have been involved with User:Jmh649 with similar discussions so am not neutral here. If the content should be moved back into the thread I 'd be happy to do it, or alternately to maintain the revert. If you have a chance would you mind taking a look. Many thanks.(olive (talk) 17:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC))
 * Unless Doc can show the information that exists on Wikipedia that demonstrates TimidGuy's connection, then any connections made will be a violation of WP:OUTING. But the information need not be clear-cut, for example, if TimidGuy mentions who he is on Wikipedia on another page, that's not outing, he effectively did it himself. Or if TimidGuy mentioned his real life name, and a person with that name is shown on another web site to be affiliated with some organization, that's not outing either. Generally, if a person chooses to connect his real identity and his Wikipedia identity in a readily-available location, they are waiving their right to privacy. But if they haven't waived that right, we have a responsibility to honor that and not take that away from them. It's basically Doc's burden to show how TimidGuy revealed that information, otherwise your removal of the info was appropriate. --  At am a  頭 18:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'll leave it as is then, and think about what needs to be done further. It may be up to those who are mentioned to take it from here.(olive (talk) 18:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC))
 * I just saw that I had aslo contacted the second person mentioned. I hadn't remembered doing that. D'oh. Anyway just for the record.(olive (talk) 20:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC))
 * I should add that this concerns matters which are being discussed off-Wiki with the ArbCom, Jimmy Wales, and TimidGuy.   Will Beback    talk    20:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Off Wikipedia discussion does not give anyone permission to out another editor on Wikipedia. I hope that's not what you are suggesting. And are these off Wiki conversations confidential? If so perhaps they should not be mentioned on Wikipedia.(olive (talk) 21:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC))
 * Sometimes the only ethical and practical way to deal with such matters is do it off Wikipedia. We do that routinely, sending sensitive information to ArbCom, or discussing things with Oversighters or OTRS (or Jimbo). There are also private mailing lists (I used to be on the MEDCOM mailing list when I was an active member). Such things are done privately specifically in order to prevent outing. When those matters can have relevance to an arbitration case (either open or closed) it's particularly appropriate to let ArbCom know about such things. --  At am a  頭 21:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree.(olive (talk) 21:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC))
 * Yes and of course both Littleolive and TimidGuy have stated on their user pages at one point in time that they teach at the Maharishi University of Management. These statements can be found on the COI noticeboard from 4-5 years ago. Thus if Littleolive could please return my comments. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * James, your MEDRS comment is not about me and it goes beyond TG's place of employment. It also includes another editor. I also asked to have information removed from my talk page because of off line harassment so I find your comments here about me, and about your MEDRS comment to be both objectionable and lacking in truthfulness . You also used the MEDRS comment in a discussion to sway an argument which is harassment, and you have used arguments which harass before  on NB. Patterns of harassment are not acceptable on Wikipedia.
 * @Atama: I apologize for dragging this kind of discussion here. My intent was ask for a neutral opinion from a respected admin, and I tried to do that on as neutral a manner as possible so as to not offend anyone. I'm not sure what the next step should be but frankly I'm losing patience with comments and actions which are meant to harm other editors. (olive (talk) 18:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC))
 * It's okay, it's not the first time I've been involved with this area of dispute (which is why I know so many of you already) so it doesn't bother me to have something discussed here. Unfortunately, our policy is somewhat ambiguous in this regard. WP:OUTING states, "If an editor has previously posted their own personal information but later redacted it, their wishes should be respected, though reference to self-disclosed information is not outing." That clause derives from this principle which was introduced by the Arbitration Committee in the second Macedonia arbitration case. Essentially, Doc is not violating policy by mentioning something that TimidGuy or yourself have volunteered in the past, even if you now wish the community to forget that either of you had disclosed it. The ambiguity is where it states that when a person redacts the information, "their wishes should be respected."


 * My own personal opinion is that the best way to resolve the ambiguity would be to look elsewhere in the policy, where it states that using self-disclosed information for "opposition research" or to constantly challenge a person's contributions is harassment. However, it also states that using that information "for discussions of conflict of interest in appropriate forums" is allowed.


 * So, in conclusion, my non-binding, freely-given, take-it-as-you-will opinion is that Doc isn't sworn to a vow of amnesia to pretend he never saw that information, or to never bring it up. On the other hand, bringing it up solely as an attempt to undermine another editor's credibility in a dispute should not be allowed. is close enough to the latter that I would say that it wasn't an appropriate place to bring up the COI. I wouldn't go so far as to call it harassment, but I don't think bringing up TimidGuy's connection to the MUM was relevant to the discussion, and therefore should have been avoided.


 * Basically, Doc, it wasn't necessary to point out the possibility that the hypothetical medical reference librarian that TimidGuy mentioned might be at the MUM and is therefore unreliable. It would probably be enough to just say that a Wikipedia guideline shouldn't be determined by anecdotal second-hand evidence, or to focus on the strengths and weaknesses of TimidGuy's arguments, rather than any personal bias he might have toward the subject. I don't see any advantage in bringing up a potential COI, either what TimidGuy is suggesting is correct or it isn't. That's just some advice from me, it's not meant to be an interpretation of any Wikipedia guidelines or policies, just my personal suggestion as to how I would handle the situation. --  At am a  頭 20:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Since this thread is still ongoing I'll add another comment. Atama, I emailed you last month asking for advice on how to handle this issue but you did not respond. It turns out that TimidGuy has a much greater conflict of interest than he had previously disclosed. He had been asked long ago if he had a conflict of this type and gave a deceptive answer, and he failed to disclose this significant COI in any of the numerous occasions when his involvement in the topic was discussed. The matter has been discussed off-Wiki, and I believe that it is settled and that TimidGuy will not be editing the topic again. If that is not the case and he presses the matter then a public case will need to be made, one in which his actual role will have to be discussed. I'm hoping that that isn't necessary and that we can move forward following best practices. Unless we hear from TG on this matter, I think we should just drop it.   Will Beback    talk    21:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I remember that email, I replied on August 30 (I still have a copy of the reply, I can forward it if you want but it's a moot point now). You didn't reveal to me the name of the editor in question, but after this discussion I had guessed it was probably TimidGuy. My advice to you at the time was that revealing the info on Wikipedia would be outing and that you'd basically have to sit on the knowledge for the moment. However, what I now realize that I should have suggested that you forward it to ArbCom. I forgot that there was an arbitration case about the topic in the past, and that's exactly the kind of info that should be sent on to them. It sounds like you took that route on your own, so you were wiser than me in the matter. :) --  At am a  頭 21:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, there's your reply in the spam folder. Maybe Google is interpreting "COI" as a spam term. Thanks for the good advice, which I took in advance. ;)   Will Beback    talk    22:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry that Will sees fit to hint at information that apparently was not public, on a public talk page. But that has been the standard. There are second class citizens on Wikipedia and there are those who make sure they are treated as second class citizens, indeed who create and nurture the narrative at every turn that they are second class citizens. This is sad and unfortunate for Wikipedia. And personally I find it despicable. (olive (talk) 22:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC))
 * Thanks Atama you have been fair, measured, honest, and sensible.(olive (talk) 22:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC))
 * I haven't "hinted" at anything. TimidGuy has repeatedly commented on his position at MUM. Some folks here seem more interested in inflaming this matter than resolving it. I don't think that this thread is helpful.   Will Beback    talk    06:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * No. Will that is a disingenuous comment. My question to Atama was neutral, and did not attack or personalize anyone. Both you and Doc once again provided the same red herrings you have many times in the past, unhinging a straightforward discussion and comment. If you a operate this way, you and Doc both can expect editors to take the steps necessary to  clarify the situation and to protect themselves And you most certainly hinted at off Wiki discussions which you said will impact an editor. Given they are off Wiki and are therefore not meant for the community at large, they should not have been mentioned on a talk page. This is indiscreet. (olive (talk) 16:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC))
 * Olive, I haven't hinted at off-Wiki discussions - I mentioned them directly. Off-Wiki discussions are often relevant to on-Wiki issues, and that's certainly the case here. I don't think there are any red herrings involved, though I personally feel there has been intentional deception and evasion, which disappoints me as I expected better. However, as I wrote before, that particular issue is settled unless TG wants to make a public case.   Will Beback    talk    21:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Unless the off WP issue is about Doc James' attempted outing which is what this thread is about then that discussion/information is not pertinent here. Further, if a discussion has been carried out off Wikipedia presumably because the information is sensitive,  is it your place to divulge information on Wikipedia? If you have information that is public then I'd suggest this is not the place to post it.  (olive (talk) 22:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC))
 * I was under the impression this thread concerned TG. If anyone has a COI so significant even indirect references to it generate complaints then those references probably aren't the biggest problem. In any case, I don't think Atama's talk page is the place to discuss this. I'd be happy to talk with you about it in more detail off-Wiki if you send me a note.     Will Beback    talk    22:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The propensity both you and Doc have to reframe discussions  in the direction of COI, and over several years, through COIN complaints which didn't amount to anything, an arbitration where COI wasn't shown and in my case from the very first interaction I had with you, is truly remarkable. If I'm  not comfortable having information that is sensitive, posted on this page, I can say with certainty I am  not comfortable discussing it with you off Wikipedia. Thanks for the offer, but I think I'll wait for the movie.:o)(olive (talk) 02:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC))
 * I'm not sure how any of your comments here further the resolution of this problem. If you'd like to discuss it privately, I'm open to that. But just complaining isn't a discussion. It should be no surprise that my first encounter with you on the TM pages was about COI, since I've said several time that it was the unresolved COI issues which got me involved with the topic to begin with. Because some editors have hidden their true COI, previous efforts at dispute resolution proceeded without all of the facts. You apparently knew the facts but joined in hiding them. That's unhelpful, as is your seeming habit of running interference anytime the subject comes up. The lady doth protest too much, methinks.   Will Beback    talk    05:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

My fist discussion with you was about an artist who you alleged was a meditator, he isn't, and that my effort to clean up the lead of his article towards a more NPOV, showed a TM COI, a patent absurdity. Your statement is laced with suggestive content and half truths which if I don't rebut will oddly show up in arbitration enforcements or on Talk pages or NB where the well is poisoned yet again and again as as been the past. For example where the admins in attendance, the same two, Future Perfect and Cirt, show up and in one case and even with out evidence or giving me a chance to comment sanctioned me and closed the case. As long as you persist in reframing and mischaracterizing, and that content shows up in your evidence, I will rebut. I'm not complaining Will, I'm documenting wrong. But you're right this discussion shouldn't be on this page. (olive (talk) 17:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC))
 * Since this thread is ongoing, I'll add my comment. The topic of this thread is Duc James' misbehavior in regarding to WP:Outing. As Atama has stated previously "Unless Doc can show the information that exists on Wikipedia that demonstrates TimidGuy's connection, then any connections made will be a violation of WP:OUTING." So far, to my knowledge, James has failed to provide any diffs that support his attempted outing statements. Secondly James has used COI accusations on a number of recent occasions to poison the well and gain the upper hand in content disputes.  These are clear violations of WP:COI which states "Do not use conflict of interest as an excuse to gain the upper hand in a content dispute." The fact that James continued this misbehavior, even after ArbCom corrected his mis-interpretation of the WP:COI policy on August 26, with yet another COI accusation during a content dispute and the attempted outing currently under discussion, is disruptive and disturbing. --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> •  Talk  • 01:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think this thread is helping us move towards any resolution, and we've abused Atama's hospitality. I won't comment here further: anyone else is welcome to the last word(s).   Will Beback    talk    07:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks,OpenInfoForAll (talk) 22:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks like this RFAR was opened in error, but I appreciate you following the procedure and notifying me anyway. :) --  At am a  頭 23:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

COI/disruption incident on Luke Ravenstahl
Hello. Regarding this COI noticeboard report you responded to, the problematic user has resumed editing. To date, the user has never participated in any form of discussion with any of the editors who have attempted to share concerns with him or her. &mdash;Bill Price (nyb) 16:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I did say that if the editor started up again, I'd block indefinitely, and I've done so. The editor was actually blocked a week ago, for 24 hours, for the same behavior. The most recent edit is the first one done after they were unblocked. The normal escalation following a 24 hour block in most cases is 48 hours, however, the editor has no history of positive contributions, and considering how sporadically they edit (generally taking a week's break after a short editing activity) I doubt that a short block would even be noticed, let alone have any positive effect on their behavior. --  At am a  頭 16:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

How to define Outing in cases where there are indications of a COI
Hey. I happened to see your comments at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Do you think it would be useful to prepare an essay giving an opinion on when suggestions that an editor may have a COI would not be considered Outing? In the past I felt this was one of those things on which agreement would never be found, so it was better not to start. But your ideas in that thread sound like common sense to me. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It might be, it might help with COIN at least. I wrote one other essay that people seem to have accepted (after it went through 2 MfDs and I compromised on the content) so I can give another essay a try. Or you can start it and I can help, whatever you want. I'd have to give some thought as to how to approach it. Maybe, "To out or not to out". Hmm, that gives the TOONTOO acronym, that's kind of catchy. :) --  At am a  頭 21:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:Don't shoot yourself in the foot looks like a worthwhile effort. I'll have to reflect on where to go with this. I realize that there is a current practice at WP:COIN (on avoiding outing) that seems reasonably well-accepted among the regulars, but it may not be written down. Since I've not been at COIN much lately, perhaps I should read some recent discussions to see if that is still true. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Whenever you edit COIN, there's a big notice at the top of the editing page, in red, that says, "When investigating possible cases of conflict of interest editing, editors must be careful not to out other editors. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over the conflict of interest guideline." It's a very touchy subject there because the temptation to out people in order to pursue a COI complaint is common. It's so touchy that there was an MfD requesting that the board be deleted because it was just a place to out people. The discussion was a snow keep, but even so, it shows how concerned people are about the topic. --  At am a  頭 22:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's generally taken as a given that Outing concerns take precedence over COI, but the comment of yours that I noticed in the Brookstreet Hotel thread was the first place I saw someone trying to spell out how to navigate around the permitted boundary. EdJohnston (talk) 23:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

RD
Hi. Could you move the discussion to archive? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 07:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It will archive itself soon, I'd rather not get in the robot's way. But I've collapsed the section if that helps. --  At am a  頭 16:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Berezovsky
You seemed to favor a topic ban for Deepdish7 and Kolokol1 in the WP:COIN discussion, but you have not yet made any comment in the related thread which was opened at ANI: Ani. I would be curious to know your view, whichever side you come down on. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There's a lot of stuff to wade through, a lot more than what was at COIN, especially with Deepdish7's disruption which is more extensive than I realized. I'll have to reconsider my topic ban suggestion I made at COIN in regards to Kolokol1. --  At am a  頭 19:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Got a sec...?
Hi Atama,

Both a thank you for your explanations on the rules of OUTING, and a request for wisdom. So I'm trying to move to a world where I can be some help on the COI board, and my case study so far is Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard, thank you so much for your help so far. We've had a response from the user today that I'm not sure how to handle is (the edit in question is: []) on the face of it I'm not sure how to deal with the accusation of harassment, and in second place I'm not sure what happens with the sentence of mine that was removed on the same edit - On one hand I'm fully supportive of someone wanting to remove their twitter details from the post (and If you want to do the proper admin blanking that would be fine by me also), but I'm unsure what to do about the removal of the Protecode point and the changing of the meaning of the sentance I wrote. What would you do? Failedwizard (talk) 19:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I responded to him already. Basically he can't accuse you of outing, our policy is pretty explicit on this. If the editor wants to edit with privacy he can give it a try with WP:CLEANSTART, however as that policy states:
 * Editors who make a clean start and then resume editing in the same topic areas may be recognized by other editors in that area. If the previous and clean start accounts are not linked, this can result in direct questioning and/or sockpuppet investigation requests, and the linkage between the two accounts may become public knowledge. Clean start accounts should not return to the same topic areas or editing patterns if there is a strong desire to separate from the initial account.
 * So it may not work anyway. In any case, his removal of your text is in violation of WP:TPO in my opinion. I suggest you put your statement back as it was, he is in the wrong, especially if he is changing the meaning of what you wrote. --  At am a  頭 03:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you! :) Failedwizard (talk) 06:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Administrator's Noticeboard case involving Jespah
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Proposed topic ban of Jespah". Thank you.  Ol Yeller Talktome 17:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Miss Teenage California
Atama - this article was tagged G4 due to a previous AFD closed as delete. However, the most recent AFD closed by me on 19 Sept was no consensus. The decision should have gone to WP:DRV and not WP:CSD. Personally, I dont really care, but I would like to make sure you made an informed decision. The issue is being discussed at Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard.--v/r - TP 21:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I commented. --  At am a  頭 22:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Rutabaga
Hi, Atama. It seems Gandydancer missed my reply earlier in September. He has noticed it now and we still have an active disagreement. I'd appreciate you taking a look. Thanks, Rkitko (talk) 16:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll leave some comments. --  At am a  頭 16:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems as if Gandydancer is distracted by other discussions and endeavors at the moment and has dropped our Rutabaga discussion, even though we were making progress. I'm still irked by the fact that his version that I object to is still present on the article. As part of the WP:BRD cycle, it would seem that the bit under discussion would be removed until consensus is reached. Essentially, I endorse the edited-down version, which isn't that different from Gandydancer's version and was the result of my attempt to compromise somewhere between the current article and the version after our WP:3O in 2009. If the current article is agreeable to Gandydancer, what's his incentive to continue the discussion and argue for inclusion of his material? Could we revert to the earlier edited-down version of that section and then try to engage him again? Rkitko (talk) 17:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You mention BRD, which is quite relevant. The second part of BRD is the revert, which will only happen if Gandydancer is still involved at the page.


 * My suggestion is this. Be as courteous as possible. Leave a note directly on Gandydancer's user talk page, stating what you intend to do, and that if Gandydancer objects, that you won't go through with it. Watchlist the user talk page (if you haven't already) and wait 24 hours (I use 24 hours as a rule-of-thumb to wait for a response because I never know what a person's current time zone is at any given time). If there's no response, then make the changes. Post a follow-up to your initial message stating that the changes were made. I don't think anyone could fault you for that. If Gandydancer has truly moved on, then there will be no objections, and there is no problem. If Gandydancer objects, then the discussion will resume. So you can't lose either way. --  At am a  頭 23:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Recall: TParis - Overlooked sub-page during deletion
Recently an article on Swami Budhpuri Ji had some copyright violation and as mentioned here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Copyvio/sandbox, a new article was rewritten as a temporary page here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Swami_Budhpuri_Ji/Temp but User:Tparis overlooked that and deleted the page without any review or reason. The issue was posted on his talk page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TParis but it hasn't been resolved. Please recall User:Tparis 117.205.60.151 (talk) 04:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * TParis was completely correct. The article was deleted via a deletion discussion, therefore the article, its talk page, and any subpages are to be deleted. If you disagree that the AfD should have been closed as it was, you can bring it up at WP:DRV and state why you disagree with the closure of the discussion. --  At am a  頭 06:49, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

News and progress from RfA reform 2011
(You are receiving this message because you are either a task force member, or you have contributed to recent discussions on any of these pages.)

The number of nominations continues to nosedive seriously, according to  these monthly figures. We know why this is, and if the trend continues our reserve of active admins will soon be underwater. Wikipedia now needs suitable editors to come forward. This can only be achieved either through changes to the current system, a radical alternative, or by fiat from elsewhere.

A lot of work is constantly being done behind the scenes by the coordinators and task force members, such as monitoring the talk pages, discussing new ideas, organising  the project  pages, researching  statistics and keeping  them  up  to  date. You'll also see for example that  we have recently  made tables to  compare how other Wikipedias choose  their sysops, and some tools have been developed to more closely examine !voters' habits.

The purpose of WP:RFA2011 is to focus attention on  specific issues of our  admin  selection  process and to develop  RfC proposals for solutions to improve them. For this, we have organised the project into dedicated sections each with their own discussion pages. It is important to understand that  all Wikipedia policy changes take a long  time to implement whether or not the discussions appear to  be active - getting the proposals right before offering them for discussion by the broader community is crucial to the success of any RfC. Consider keeping the pages and their talk pages on your watchlist; do check out older threads before starting a new one on topics that have been discussed already, and if you start a new thread, please revisit it regularly to follow up on new comments.

The object of WP:RFA2011 is not  to make it  either  easier or harder to  become an admin -  those criteria are set by  those who  !vote at  each  RfA. By providing  a unique venue for developing ideas for  change independent  of  the general discussion  at  WT:RFA, the project has two  clearly  defined goals: The fastest way is through improvement to the current system. Workspace is however also available within the project  pages to  suggest  and discuss ideas that are not  strictly  within  the remit  of this project. Users are invited to make use of these pages where they  will  offer maximum exposure to  the broader community, rather than individual  projects in  user space.
 * 1) Improving the environment  that  surrounds RfA in  order to  encourage mature, experienced editors of the right  calibre to  come forward, pass the interview, and dedicate some of their  time to  admin  tasks.
 * 2) Discouraging, in the nicest  way  possible of course, those whose RfA will be obvious NOTNOW or SNOW, and to  guide them towards the advice pages.

We already know what's wrong with RfA - let's not clutter the project with perennial chat. RFA2011 is now ready to propose some of the elements of reform, and all the task force needs to do now is to pre-draft those proposals in the project's workspace, agree on the wording, and then offer them for central discussion where the entire Wikipedia community will be more than welcome to express their opinions in  order to  build consensus.

New tool Check your RfA !voting history! Since the editors' RfA !vote counter at X!-Tools has been down for a long while, we now have a new RfA Vote Counter to replace it. A significant improvement on the former tool, it provides a a complete breakdown of an editor's RfA votes, together with an analysis of the participant's voting pattern.

Are you ready to help? Although the main engine of RFA2011 is its task force, constructive comments from any  editors are always welcome on  the project's various talk  pages. The main reasons  why  WT:RfA was never successful in  getting  anything  done are that threads on different aspects of RfA are all mixed together, and are then archived where nobody  remembers them and where they  are hard to  find - the same is true of ad hoc threads on  the founder's talk  page.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 15:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC).

User:Iadrian yu is a new meta/sock puppet of banned User:Iaaasi
User:Iadrian yu is a new meta/sock puppet of User:Iaasi. He was banned many times by anti-semite and chauvinist edits in English Wikipedia. Notice: Iaaasi uses more Internet Providers from Romania. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bornicus (talk • contribs) 10:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I would ask you if you could provide some evidence of this accusation. But... I see that you are blocked as a sockpuppet yourself, and you were reported by Iadrian yu. So I'm not going to bother. --  At am a  頭 16:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Sock of BANNED user?

 * Hey Atama, just thought I bring this user up to you since his other sock  is croaking right now. TBH, I could be wrong but from the looks of it, it does seem likely that they are the same person, and a simple CU won't lie to us. Thoughts? -- <i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 09:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey Atama, just thought I bring this user up to you since his other sock  is croaking right now. TBH, I could be wrong but from the looks of it, it does seem likely that they are the same person, and a simple CU won't lie to us. Thoughts? -- <i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 09:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Sockpuppet investigations/Chanakyathegreat
 * Prelim result just in, User:Flyingalbatross and User:Growingnuerons are confirmed as the sock of "Chanakyathegreat", while User:Taurgo has created two other sock accounts ( and ) but is otherwise not related to "Chanakyathegreat". However, going by WP:DUCK evidences of Taurgo's area of interest with "Chanakyathegreat", I'm not ready to AGF this (per WP:MEATPUPPET, CMIW). -- <i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 18:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah I got an email from Taurgo on the 5th denying a connection but with CU evidence showing sleeper socks any good faith I'd extend to Taurgo is exhausted. Thanks for letting me know about this stuff. --  At am a  頭 22:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Ebrahimi-amir
This user is still engaged in WP:Disruption and edit-warring all over the place. Keep in mind that this user has been blocked indefinitely for similar behavior, before you unblocked him under the sole condition that he'd behave. You told him that if similar behavior occurs, he will be blocked again. Just look at his editing history, it's blind revert after blind revert, some without even an edit-summary. For example just look at this revert, he is is removing sourced content, replacing it with WP:OR. This is borderline vandalism. Kurdo777 (talk) 22:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually I looked at that revert, and unless I'm confused he's doing the opposite of what you claim. He's removing information that has "citation needed tags" and no references, and even adding a reference. He did remove an external link to the BBC but that hardly counts as vandalism. --  At am a  頭 00:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you

 * I don't think I've ever done anything to deserve that level of praise but thank you anyway. --  At am a  頭 17:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Question
Hey Atama, I know I'm close to this, so looking for a second opinion. Nothing actionable here, right? Thanks!!!– Lionel (talk) 10:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about Binksternet's actions? I don't think so. I can't imagine what would cause someone to turn from supporting a project to nominating it for deletion. But speculation about a person's motives isn't something that we generally do without a good reason, generally it's their actions that deserve response, and while the nomination of the project was certainly unusual (something Binksternet admitted to) the discussion proceeded like any other MfD. It was a clear "keep" consensus but I don't see that the nomination itself was in any was disruptive.


 * If there is some other concern that I'm totally missing, I apologize, please point it out to me (it's still a bit early for me and my caffeine hasn't quite kicked in yet). --  At am a  頭 17:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Need help with another users harassment
Atama, Thank you for helping! I started the name change as you suggested. The user Atlan is still harassing me even now on the incident abuse page for the Attempted outing and Azeztulite article. I am not the Ebay account holder, and never stated I was, but Atlan continues his rant about it. Please help. I am walking away but this should not be allowed to continue. Thank you! Maxnxs 17:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I just read your message over at Maxnxs' talk page. I'm sorry but what kind of half-assed reply to the above message is that? Where is the part where you say "Atlan did not harass or out you"? It may not have been your intention, but reading it makes it seem as though their complaints were legitimate, i.e. that I was indeed harassing or outing them. You basically give them a pat on the back at my expense, as they are now still, if not more so, convinced I am harassing them. I find it an entirely unsatisfactory resolution that I'm still the bad guy here.--Atlan (talk) 22:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * If I was convinced you were harassing Maxnxs at this point, you'd know, because I would have come to you about it. I made it clear at ANI that you weren't harassing before. However, if you do insist on connecting Maxnxs to the old account against their wishes after the name change, then you are the bad guy. Our policy is clear on that. --  At am a  頭 22:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, Maxnxs hasn't edited in the past couple of days, what makes you think "they are now still, if not more so, convinced [you are] harassing them"? All you have to do is avoid mentioning their old username and you're fine. If they complain about the fact that you were harassing them in the past, you can point out that at least one admin (me) declared there was no basis in the complaint. Notice that I also did not acknowledge their complaint above about you. That comment left above was actually done before the username change was finished, despite what the signature currently says. --  At am a  頭 23:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I know that they are still convinced that I was harassing them because the above complaint came well after your ANI reply. What you said at ANI obviously didn't get through to them and I continued to be blamed for harassment. I happen to find that a rather serious allegation to throw around, but apparently it was more important to coddle a somewhat disruptive SPA than to set this straight. Even better, I get a lecture on when I would be the bad guy. Thanks.--Atlan (talk) 00:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Maxnxs said, "I am walking away but this should not be allowed to continue." So if you don't bring it up again there's no problem. Do you plan to? And if I can't get through to someone before, what makes you think that repeating myself is going to help? Honestly, at this point the only person who seems to be trying to keep this dispute going is you. Let it go. --  At am a  頭 00:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I was merely stating my opinion on how you've handled this, which I think was very helpful to Maxnxs, but rather lacking of any consideration to me. I don't request or expect any additional action from you. If I wanted to keep this dispute going, I could've posted this over at Maxnxs' talk page. This only came about when I was prodded on my talk page and then dragged to ANI by them. I have never taken the initiative so this whole "harassment" issue would cease when they stop contacting me about it. I have said as much at ANI, which you apparently didn't read. The only reason I'm still bringing this up here, is because you replied to them only hours ago. I hardly could've brought this up any sooner.--Atlan (talk) 00:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've never resolved a dispute by chastising the main complainant after they've declared that they are walking away from the dispute. Especially if I'm only repeating myself in doing so. I'm sorry if you're upset that I didn't stick up for you, but I thought it would be in everyone's best interests to just let the dispute go away. My reply to Maxnxs was only meant to give advice on how to deal with the name change from this point on. I never meant to endorse Maxnxs's complaints either explicitly or implicitly, and my reply certainly wasn't meant as a criticism toward you. --  At am a  頭 01:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Unresolved Questions re Adminhelp
Hi Atama, I wanted to thank you for getting involved in the debacle that I inadvertently started with my ANI filing. The filing has now been archived due to being inactive for 24 hours, which concerns me a bit as my original question was never actually resolved...I made a couple of suggestions, but nobody replied. There may have been other aspects of the conversation that also merited further discussion. I'm reluctant to just renew the filing and I'm not sure what the protocol is for such in any case, but I remain concerned that the template suggests that an editor will receive a response in a timely fashion when that does not seem to be the case in practice, and at least one admin acknowledged that they deliberately ignore such requests. I'd appreciate your thoughts on the best course of action...or if you feel the best course of action is no action, please feel free to say that as well. Thank you for your input. Doniago (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As I noted in ANI, the Adminhelp template is never to bring the attention of an admin to an urgent situation - that is what WP:ANI, or WP:AIV, or WP:AN/3RR are for - depending on the situation. As a minimum, ANI is for "instant" action.  The adminhelp template is typically used to draw the attention of a "senior" editor, and possibly with someone who has the ability to edit through certain types of protection.  It is never in my history been used to bring admins to a situation - and by doing so, you're expecting an admin to jump in with no backstory or reason. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 13:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Then, as I stated in my ANI filing, perhaps the purpose of the template needs to be made more clear. The documentation primarily only states that it can be used, "if you need help from an administrator," which was the case at the time I invoked it; I wanted an experienced set of eyes on a conversation that appeared to be escalating into incivility, without necessarily resulting in disciplinary action.
 * Additionally concerns were raised that the template was being ignored for being too general; I suggested the possibility that more specific templates could be created to categorize requests, but did not receive a response to my suggestion. Doniago (talk) 14:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Like I said before, I'm a bit short on ideas for fixing it. But a good place for discussion might be Template talk:Help me. You can leave a message on WP:AN as a notification to get other admins to chime in. One thing I'm curious about, is that Template talk:Admin help is a redirect to a different template's talk page. There has to be a story behind that one. --  At am a  頭 23:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I noticed that myself...I assume the goal was to consolidate discusssion of similar templates, though it seems rather anomalous. Thank you for the suggestions, I'd definitely like to see this situation reviewed and maybe get the template revised accordingly, or more specific templates developed if other editors feel that is a good way to proceed. Doniago (talk) 03:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've started a discussion here. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 14:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest
Hi Atama, Thank you for your note. It is appreciated. I read the page you linked about COI. After reading the section about single-purpose accounts I can understand why you or others may have concerns that there is a conflict of interest. The article in question is my first biography (a work in progress) of a living person under the pseudonyme Country music aficionado. I started other biographies of nobable Tennesseans (which also need work): Bill Herzer and Bill Taylor (Martial artist), but under a different pseudonyme. I have no financial interest or expect to derive monetary or other benefits from creating the articles. I want to create from a neutrality view point. Your assistance is welcome.Country music aficionado (talk) 00:13, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, but using different usernames makes very little sense, as per the username policy ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 00:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * My mistake, Country music aficionado. I meant to provide a link to the conflict of interest noticeboard discussion but I had mistyped it. I fixed it on your user talk page, or you can click this link to read it. Brianhe is the person who had initially expressed concerns with your edits, so you can discuss matters with him directly or on the noticeboard. I myself haven't looked directly at your edits so at this point I have no opinion about any potential conflicts of interest you might have, but note that while a COI may include direct financial gain, that is not the only way a person would have a COI.


 * I'll also echo what Bwilkins stated above. People are strongly discouraged from having multiple accounts unless under very specific circumstances. Each account should only be used by a single person, and each person should only use a single account. If you had an older account that you abandoned, however, there is nothing wrong with that, you just should not use both accounts simultaneously. --  At am a  頭 01:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion
As a participant at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion, would you take a look at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikihounding/stalking
was told not to interact with me for 3 months, by you diff. I was told likewise, and I kept away from him. Now, as soon as the ban has expired, he wikistalked me to BLPN to post a disruptive, mostly off-topic slur. diff

I ask that this person, who has become a nightmare for me, following me from article to article to post spiteful and barely comprehensible attacks, be blocked from interacting with me in perpetuity, please. Wikistalking is rampant and is the sort of thing (inter alia) that forced me to start multiple accounts, and it needs to be strongly, even harshly discouraged.  Jabbsworth  05:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Due the serious effects that may imply to living people, I have strong concerns about BLP violations. Answering a BLP request at the BLP/N and doing so without any personal attack nor using any rude word but solely arguments and referring in a very civil manner to WP policies, it can not be understood as stalking. Every user and admin involved in that BLP request and also in an ANI thread, did agree that the content proposed by Jabbsworth was innapropiate and against BLP policy. I will not engage in a useless discussion interchanging accusations, despite of Jabbsworth accused not solely me but other users of stalking, etc. So, please just read the BLP/N, the ANI and this talk page. -- <span class="texhtml" style="font-family:Berlin Sans FB; font-size:small; text-shadow:orange 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em;"> ClaudioSantos ¿?  19:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Q.E.D. Whereever I go, this stalker turns up. Likewise the one below.  Jabbsworth   23:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I am guilty of "stalking" Atama's talk page, proof: I have it on my watch list. And I am also guilty of intervene in this thread dealing about me, proof: read from top to bottom. -- <span class="texhtml" style="font-family:Berlin Sans FB; font-size:small; text-shadow:orange 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em;"> ClaudioSantos ¿?  01:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And your singular extreme lack of AGF is apparent - I paid no cognizance of you until you posted on my user talk page. Amazingly enough, when you post four times in an hour on a talk page, a lot of people notice it. IIRC, I have a couple hundred lurkers at this point.    So if anyone was being "stalked" it is infinitely more likely that you stalked me than the reverse.   Cheers -- I suspect your attempt at admin shopping is going nowhere after your post at BLP/N where you lace into Gwen Gale <g>.  Collect (talk) 23:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec)(@JW) Nonsense. Just like your accusations of me, and everyone else, stalking you -- when you make a non-WP:BLP compliant edit you should expect others to notice. (See WP:BLP/N) As for the "off topic slurs" I would point out the slurs you make against Gwen Gale at. Cheers - but admin shopping when the fault is in your court seems not likely to avail you much of anything. Collect (talk) 19:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Firstly, the topic ban expired weeks ago, to say that you were reported as soon as it ended is a bit hyperbolic.


 * Secondly, to accuse someone of stalking is pretty serious, and you seem to be misusing that term quite a bit here.


 * "The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. If 'following another user around' is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions."


 * I don't see that behavior occurring.


 * Finally, there is an open investigation about your connection to Ratel. It is being taken seriously. Referring to that investigation is not a slur. Jabbsworth, you need to cool it with your accusations, per WP:AOHA:


 * "Making accusations of harassment can be inflammatory and hence these accusations may not be helpful in a dispute. It can be seen as a personal attack if harassment is alleged without clear evidence that the others' action is actually harassment, and unfounded accusations may constitute harassment themselves if done repeatedly. The result is often accusations of harassment on your part, which tends to create a nasty cycle."


 * Defend your editing on its own merits without taking the offensive against editors you are in dispute with. These accusations are counter-productive. --  At am a  頭 06:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

You might be interested in
- looks familiar. Dougweller (talk) 11:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice. The user name suggested a connection on its own. Looking at the content of their edits I think there's a lot of quacking. I'm just glad the editor's lack of imagination makes things easy for us. --  At am a  頭 23:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

newcomen
Hello I am begining to appreciate how this works and am impressed....my apologies for the cofusion I have created can you change my name to 'TTelford' I have checked it is availiable.....Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newcomen (talk • contribs) 18:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
<div style="; float: left; margin-top: 3px; background-color: #FC9; border: 1px solid #8888aa; padding: 10px; width: 425px; clear: both;"> <div style="; border-style:solid; border-color:#4682B4; background-color:#900020; border-width:5px; text-align:left; padding:18px;" class="plainlinks" valign="top" width: 300px;> "And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,   I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.  For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."  Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)  Wee Curry Monster talk is wishing you a Merry Christmas. This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.

Spread the cheer by adding to their talk page with a friendly message.