User talk:AtlantaHistoryFreak

Warned for Violation of Self-published Sources then Blocked for Alleged Sock Puppetry
Per our core policy on biographies, please do not add self-published books to biographies of living people. This is important. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:03, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Moreover, your account is disabled from editing because of the danger you present to the integrity of Wikipedia. We are not a platform for pro-, anti- or any other flavor of advocacy. If you would like to be unblocked, please disclose any other accounts under your control, including any prior accounts. Please explain what productive edits you wish to make, and your request will be considered by me or some other administrator. Jehochman Talk 11:35, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Response by AtlantaFactChecker
On July 15 2018, I was banned indefinitely by a wiki moderator. Here is how events unfolded.

Last week I read a book on Bill Browder as I had become interested in the case of Sergei Magnitsky. After reading the book, I wanted to search for additional information on Browder and came to his Wikipedia page. When I came to his Wikipedia page, I noticed that there were numerous serious omissions. The well-covered fact that Browder was convicted of tax evasion and deliberate bankruptcy in 2017 was not even in the article. Additionally, there were other parts of the article where speculation by Browder (as to the motivations of a world leader) was reported, not as his opinion, but as fact. And actions taken by the Russian state were, without citation, attributed specifically to Vladimir Putin (indicating bias and violation of NPOV).

In addition to correcting the above mentioned issues -- edits which have not been challenged -- I added a reference to a book critical of Browder to the Criticism section of Browder's wiki page. The change was reverted by another user because the source was self-published. I, stubbornly and perhaps rashly, immediately reverted the change, reasoning in my revision, "-a self published book is an authoritative source for its own content. An author's own article is a authoritative source for the author's thought, regardless of where it is published." That was; however, a violation of the WP:BLPSPS policy, which has now been made abundantly clear to me.

This is the only account I have or have ever had on Wikipedia. I intend the improve the encyclopedia from time to time by adding well-sourced facts and improving imprecise or biased writing. I will make sure to closely adhere to WP:BLPSPS, in the future. Please undo my ban and I promise to more closely study wiki sourcing policy before making significant edits.

I am not a sock puppet! I am a real person who wants to help the encyclopedia.

P.S. I do not understand why I was permanently banned, so quickly. Per WP:BLP, users should only be blocked from editing if they "persistently or egregiously violate this policy." I do not believe I have done either.

P.P.S. Is there a proper forum in which to discuss changes to Wiki sourcing policy? I can't for the life of me figure out why primary sources such as public record court transcripts would not be allowed in citation on BLP. If they said it in court, they said it to the public... only they didn't say it on wiki? Doesn't make sense to me.

AtlantaFactChecker (talk) 14:06, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Follow up on Permanent Ban
After having some initial difficulty in figuring out the proper way, I have discovered the correct template for requesting to be un-banned. That request is below.

AtlantaFactChecker (talk) 17:45, 16 July 2018 (UTC) edited by AtlantaFactChecker (talk) 02:58, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Unblock Request
I cannot unblock without a) knowing what other articles you would like to work on and b) you agree not to edit Bill Browder's article anymore. Please can you address this.

A couple of other points, you are not banned, you are blocked. Blocks are simply a technical measure to prevent people from editing before we can prove that they will not be disruptive. The relevant discussion boards to talk about sourcing and its applicability to articles are probably the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard and the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. The reason we do not allow court transcripts is because when we need to write contentious information about a living person in an article, particularly if it relates to criminal activity, we must use widely-respected sources with a good track record of peer review, accuracy and relevance. This means that self-published books through Lulu / iUniverse are unacceptable; anyone can create a book there and make it say whatever they like, even if it's completely false. Even if primary transcripts also include the information, when it is important enough to mention in an article, it will have appeared in reputable and secondary sources. Just because a court says it, doesn't mean it's important enough to broadcast on one of the most popular websites in the world. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  13:04, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

a) I am interested primarily in US foreign policy and military history. While that is a history that is often politicized, I fully understand the importance of an encyclopedia maintaining a unbiased, neutral point of view. I have no intention of being disruptive or using wikipedia for political advocacy. I simply want to make sure that all the relevant facts which can be reliably sourced are presented.

Of particular interest to me currently is the Syrian Civil War. Specifically, I would like to add a page detailing a March 2013 rebel rocket attack on the Damascus airport and presidential palace, which according to NSA documents was directly ordered by Saudi Prince Salman bin Sultan. The attack is described in The Intercept: https://theintercept.com/2017/10/24/syria-rebels-nsa-saudi-prince-assad/

b) No problem. I will leave Bill Browder's page alone. There are plenty of other topics that interest me. However, I do hope that once I have shown a commitment to objectivity and a track record of quality edits that this restriction will be lifted.

AtlantaFactChecker (talk) 16:55, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I will give the blocking adminstrator a chance to comment (in case there are other circumstances I don't know about or have overlooked), then we can move this forward. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  18:25, 18 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I oppose this unblock request. This is not a good faith user. They are editing like a pro-Putin propagandist. We don’t need them to whitewash the Syrian civil war pages.  Editing other editors’ comments to create spin is not a good sign.  Jehochman Talk 12:24, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


 * On what basis do you conclude I am not a good faith user? Can you point to a specific edit that indicates I am posting propaganda? I have readily admitted to the violation of self-publishing in BLP. I have promised not to do so again. I am new to wikipedia and made a mistake. Moderators have pointed out the seriousness of that mistake and I have deferred to their judgement and wiki policy. I reiterate once again that I am not a sock puppet. I am a real person who wants to improve the encyclopedia. I have not attempted to circumvent this ban or debate with you over the rules. Please cite specific evidence which indicates that I am a "pro-Putin propagandist" as you claim. Thank you. AtlantaFactChecker (talk) 17:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


 * "Editing other editors’ comments to create spin" --I wasn't trying to create spin. I was just sectioning the page with a title I felt was appropriate and descriptive. My edit did not change the meaning of the original comment and it was only the section title that I adjusted. The new section title additionally, was more descriptive of what transpired. The more significant event that happened under that heading was my banning for alleged sock puppetry. I will update it again to be even more descriptive and to remove my personal view that this is "inauspicious". If by changing this section heading I have violated policy or if the user who wrote that title raised a complaint, please let me know. AtlantaFactChecker (talk) 18:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Are you interested in editing any pages that don't relate to Kremlin propaganda campaigns? Bill Browder and Sergei Magnitsky are two great honeypots. All the Kremlin typists make a bee-line to those two articles.  It's all very tiresome.  Wikipedia is not for propaganda.  If that's your purpose, go find some other sites that's receptive to that sort of thing. Jehochman Talk 18:25, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes. As I wrote above, I am interested in a wide range of topics related to US foreign policy and military history. Furthermore, I have already agreed not to edit the Bill Browder page again. If you guys want to expand that to Magnistky's page, as well, I am fine with that. I assure you I am not a "Kremlin typist". I am a US Navy veteran who was trained as a mass communications specialist. I don't think it should be necessary for me to discuss my background, but that hopefully will help resolve suspicions of me be a sock puppet or "Kremlin typist". AtlantaFactChecker (talk) 18:50, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


 * According to WP:ADVOCACY, "If an editor appears to be advocating for a particular point of view, this can be brought to their attention with reference to the neutral point of view policy." This would suggest that as long as an editor conforms to WP:NPOV, they are not engaging in advocacy. I did not violate WP:NPOV. If you believe I did violate this policy, then please show me the edits and explain why. You are permanently blocking me from participating in a website that I use and love. At least do me the courtesy of showing me that your objections are well-grounded. Thank you. AtlantaFactChecker (talk) 02:03, 21 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I would like to propose a useful edit to the "Civil uprising phase of the Syrian Civil War" page. Under the section "Concessions", the last part of the final paragraph reads, "The government announced it would release political prisoners, cut taxes, raise the salaries of public sector workers, provide more press freedoms, and increase job opportunities.[47] Many of these announced reforms were never implemented.[48]" I propose removing the final sentence, "Many of these announced reforms were never implemented," as that claim is not made by the cited source. The source, an opinion piece in The Guardian, refers specifically to an election law reform announced on May 30, 2011. The article, published the next day, speculates that the promised reforms will not be implemented, but does not claim that they have not been. Indeed how could it, considering the the reforms were only announced one day prior? AtlantaFactChecker (talk) 20:57, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I would like to request that an independent administrator review this unblock request in accordance with WP:UNINVOLVED. Blocking administrator has not provided evidence of sock puppetry nor of political advocacy and has failed to respond to my requests to make his case by citing specific edits. Blocking administrator can point to no policy violation aside from WP:BLPSPS to which I have admitted fault and promised not to repeat. Blocking administrator accused me of not posting in "good faith," but has failed to provide specific evidence to substantiate this assertion. He then accuses me of desiring to "white-wash" pages which appears to be an accusation of bad faith WP:AOBF and is again made with no specific evidence. AtlantaFactChecker (talk) 17:15, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Requesting again a review by an independent administrator in accordance with WP:UNINVOLVED. AtlantaFactChecker (talk) 03:35, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Why can't we unblock per WP:ROPE?
There seems to be a lot of discussion over this user... accusations of sock puppetry that don't seem to be fully proven, and issues with editing that the user has promised to stop. Can't we just cut the politics and give the guy a chance? ..... If he's unblocked per WP:ROPE, I'll be happy to take him under my wing and help and mentor him. Am I really not going to be able to do this because of all this? Can I not help him? ....  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   04:25, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think a bit of BOLD coupled with some IAR may be of utility here... Dax   Bane  04:32, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I helped this user on IRC, and I also support unblocking. I believe that they're editing in good faith, and I'm extremely skeptical of the claim that this account is a sock puppet, with no evidence or supposed master, given how much time they've clearly spent on this account. KSFT  (t&#124;c) 04:36, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I can understand the rationale behind the initial block, given the types of suspicious SPA accounts these articles tend to attract, but agree that WP:ROPE could be warranted here. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:14, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Requesting again a review and final determination on this unblock request. AtlantaFactChecker (talk) 02:21, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Your attention needed at WP:CHU
Hello. A renamer or clerk has responded to your username change request, but requires clarification before moving forward. Please follow up at your username change request entry as soon as possible. Thank you. &#8208;&#8208;1997kB (talk) 04:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)