User talk:Atama

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


I'd thank you...[edit]

...for your comments re: Froid's complaint, and WPP's, but I wouldn't want to be seen as currying favor with an admin, so... Happy Johnny Weissmuller Day! BMK (talk) 21:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

If it eases your mind I can yell at you to get off my talk page and never come back. -- Atama 22:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that, it gave a chuckle. BMK (talk) 23:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

That article[edit]

Glad you're still in the fray at the Barry article, I just couldn't take the constant POV-pounding by the various SPAs, especially Ganbarre's persistent attacks on my character and my editing (or maybe that was Doctor Gonzo or whomever - so hard to keep them all straight...another one just popped up on the talk page today). I try to stay out of The Dramaz but just find it so hard to resist fixing up crappy, badly-sourced puff-pieces when I come across such content on Wikipedia's pages. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 16:44, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

@Shearonink: I am administrator which automatically means that I'm a masochist. I don't thrive on drama (to the contrary, I try to reduce it if at all possible when I run across it) but neither do I shy away from it. Unfortunately I'm thoroughly involved at that article so my admin hat stays off, which has been a problem since these SPAs keep arriving. Luckily other admins have dealt with the older SPAs. -- Atama 16:56, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Banc De Binary[edit]

I didn't realize there was a COIN post on this particular company. I noticed you responded. It looks like an article filled with junk due to conflicting advocates using poor sources to support their viewpoints. Some of those advocates are paid and some are unpaid. I will work to get it un-protected so it can be edited again and then probably stubbed. CorporateM (Talk) 02:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

@CorporateM: Sorry I didn't reply earlier, it's on my watchlist. I'm keeping an eye on it. I'm also staying uninvolved as far as content goes so that I can step in as an admin if necessary. I'm aware of the article since it has been to COIN at least twice. -- Atama 15:21, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
That might be a good idea - I see it is at ANI now. I am very surprised to see so much support for the use of low-quality sources. Honestly, I think I just don't like working with others, outside a handfull of neutral editors I know do good work. What I need to do is stop getting involved in articles where I know there will be arguments, because I basically prefer to work alone. Maybe that makes me a bad team player ;-) CorporateM (Talk) 16:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Working alone doesn't make you a bad team player. Trying to force your opinion on others and/or ignore their opinions makes you a bad team player, and you don't do that. There's nothing wrong about wanting to work in uncontroversial areas. Good articles are good articles whether they are developed primarily by one editor or a dozen editors. There are plenty of times when I walked away from situations that gave me a headache, and there are many areas I don't dabble in (such as WP:AE *shudder*) because I want to avoid the irritation and extreme levels of drama. -- Atama 16:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I like that you always have such a positive message. I have become so jaded that I basically presume that any editor with an interest in a company article is an advocate of some kind and that the article must be defended against... basically everyone. It's a very poor outlook, but I can't help myself after seeing so many aggressive and complex manipulation schemes. CorporateM (Talk) 18:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

BLPSELF and SPA, can you comment on an AE?[edit]

Hello Atama - I've been hit with an AE, with the recommendation to block me from the Chopra article as an SPA, even though I'm a direct representative of Dr. Chopra regarding the NPOV violations on his article. This is puzzling. I'm not sure if it's appropriate or not to ask you for a comment. I'm trying to gain some clarity as to how WP:BLP self is now being taken away from Dr. Chopra and what exactly the offending behaviors are. As you can imagine, this puts me in an awkward situation. Is there anyway to diffuse this? SAS81 (talk) 13:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll add a statement, sure. I once gave you some advice on the article talk page, you can see it here. In essence, my advice to you was to slow down. You didn't take the advice (which I don't hold against you, it was just advice that you could have used any way you saw fit) but what Hipocrite was asking for at the AE page is essentially an enforcement of what I'd suggested before. Sandstein is suggesting that you should be banned from that talk page altogether. I think that what I'll do is support Hipocrite's suggestion, which I suggest you also do. I think that doing so could be a huge help to you, because (A) it shows that you're willing to accept the terms suggested by one of your biggest detractors on that talk page, and (B) it still gives you an opportunity to participate on the talk page. I'm not sure it's going to be better for you than that.
You might see support from other editors (like Littleolive oil or SlimVirgin, and Askarhc already spoke up for you) but I don't know that it will be enough. But look at it this way; even if your participation at the article talk page is limited, there are other editors (those who aren't labeled as SPAs with a COI) who share a sentiment similar to yours. So I think even your limited participation will still have a chance to have an impact. Just like my advice before, you can take this or leave it, but be cautious, because I think a page ban is a possibility for you, fair or not. -- Atama 15:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Atama, wise advice. Since you gave me that advice awhile back, more editors where engaging with me and I was just trying to keep up with the pace of the discussion where I was included, I apologize if this was over stepping the boundaries you suggested I keep. SAS81 (talk) 15:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE RE: Advice

I want to thank you sir for spending your time commenting on the AE. Although a little worried you may have felt that I disregarded your advice - which honestly is not the case. I truly did my best to apply it (even refraining posting for a week). The problem i was having was finding a way to practically apply that advice - which to be honest stumped me after awhile in a chaotic environment. Since just focusing on one word (I began with 'physician' and then moved on to 'guru') opened up so many questions from everyone there (another reason my count is high I have to speak to all of them) and then everyone else was giving me advice on what to do to. For example TRPoD was telling me to do the opposite, focus on content for the body. Another editor was asking for sources around another section in the body. It seemed unmanageable, at least at my level of Wikipedia experience and I was relieved when SlimVirgin came in (you see I stayed back allot when she did).

Anyway, I am going to completely re-tool my entire approach. I want to post less too, believe me :) Thanks again for your time. SAS81 (talk) 17:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome, I'm available if you have any other questions or concerns. -- Atama 18:53, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Adding a sockpuppet to a closed SPI[edit]

Apologies if this is the wrong place to ask this, but I don't know where else to start.

You closed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hamdirfan987/Archive - permanently blocking all the suspected accounts.
Since then, I have found an additional account User:Hamd Irfan, which User:Hamdirfan987's old user page stated was his real name. Furthermore, although this account has only made 2 edits, the first was to request page protection for Raashid Alvi and the second was to alter a quotation by Alvi in another article, which fits the sockpuppet pattern exactly.
The full protection expires on 17 June, and, although I have asked the protecting admin, User:Dougweller, for it to be semi-protected for a longer period, being a long standing account, this account could become autoconfirmed in a few minutes.

Can the existing SPI be extended to cover this extra account? Or would it need a whole new SPI? Or should I be asking this question somewhere else? - Arjayay (talk) 12:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

@Arjayay: The way SPI works is that you can create a new SPI using the same sockmaster as before (Hamdirfan987). You do that under the "How to open an investigation" section on the main SPI page, by entering in the sockmaster's name and hitting the "submit" button. Because the sockmaster's user name is the same as the old case, it is automatically connected to the previously-archived case for administrators, clerks, and checkusers to refer to during the new investigation. When the case is closed, it will be added to the existing archive.
On the other hand, I already blocked Hamd Irfan per WP:DUCK so don't worry about their future actions. Clearly a sleeper account (it's almost 3 years old!). -- Atama 15:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Also, if you are using Twinkle, go to the user or user talk page for the sock. Click on ARV in the User Page menu and change the report type to SockPuppet. Add the sock master name and put in your evidence and click Submit Query. For easy, WP:DUCK type reports, this is often the easiest way. Just make sure you do put evidence in there and it's enough to convince folks. If it's a more complicated case or I'm reporting multiple socks, I'll go through SPI as Atama outlined. Ravensfire (talk) 15:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you - Arjayay (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Dr. G[edit]

Hi. I took a shot at improving the Yank Barry section we had previously discussed. Could you take a look at it and make any necessary changes. I have to run but I'll check back later. I would really appreciate it if it does not get deleted or reverted, but is used as a beginning to better the article. Thanks.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 21:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll look it over, thanks. -- Atama 22:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, here goes. You seem to be a neutral point of view editor in a sea of hypocrisy. I'm not saying that means you like or dislike Yank Barry. I've never met Yank Barry. I've only heard of Yank Barry for a month. It is a fact I've only made one edit to the Yank Barry article. I've made more edits to the Jordan Burroughs article. There is no talk page there and there is nothing going on that I feel is wrong. So no, I don't have any addition to that talk page, but I've made plenty of additions to the page. I do not understand why every other statement I make, either you don't understand or miss the point entirely. I'm sure this is my fault for not being clearer on the talk page. I can name several users on the Yank Barry talk page who are flat out not coming from a neutral point of view. It's bad enough that I have asked other editors for help and considered bringing it up on an administration page. I will never, ever, intentionally make an edit to an article that is not from a neutral point of view. I'd love to work with you on this article. I'm not just going to sit silently when I see an injustice taking place. I think part of you misunderstanding my purpose is when I respond to the problems. It seems to be the norm to pick apart everything YB does. I've never taken anything negative out of the article. I don't agree with saying a charity is not notable because it's too small. If that makes you think I can't come at this from a neutral point of view then I am truly sorry. Again, I'm very sorry for the confusion in general. You seem to be a really good and fair editor and whether you see it or not, there aren't a lot of those on the Yank Barry talk page. It is my goal to be a really good and fair editor. It will never be my goal to violate WP:NPOV. I did go to school to be a social studies teacher, so I'm not totally stupid. I can understand the neural point of view section. Just to be clear, I read every policy I could find before I ever made an edit to a Wikipedia page. My first edits were not even to the Yank Barry page and I've made plenty to other articles since. YB is the only talk page that is active that I've come across, other than Admin, so if there is no talk page activity there can be no one outright campaigning against a subject. What I needed from day one was an experienced editor to show me the ropes on Wikipedia. Instead, what I got was a message on my second day that said my username was on the admin boards. I believe you were taking part in that discussion. That was very frustrating to be called a sock on my second day and every time since. If there is anything I can do to clarify what I'm trying to say then I will be more than happy to try. There is absolutely nothing worse than being misunderstood. Thanks and good night.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 01:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Atama, it has been brought to my attention that the one edit, I was referring to, on the Yank Barry article, counts as more. I am NOT trying to mislead you or further your misunderstanding of me. What happened was I made the edit, it was reverted, I made the edit, it was reverted. You gave an example of what was proper, I made the edit, user Ubikwit disagreed with both of us and once again reverted. I changed some wording in the music section too and I believe I added some boxer info (which was reverted and then reverted back by another editor, not me). My overall point was, even though it says I've made 9 edits to the Yank Barry article, I haven't added 9 new thoughts. I've added a ton more info to other pages. The other page I've been heavily involved in doesn't have an active talk page, like YB, so counting talk page edits is like comparing two different articles, context matters. Anyhow, just wanted to clarify, I don't want to further confuse or mislead or be misunderstood. I appreciate your time. Please know that I do respect you as an editor and I do strive to be like you as an editor and I would appreciate any help you can give me. I am yet to come across an editor that is NICE to me. The criticism is very harsh and can make a person feel very stupid, especially when you're donating your time to try and help in an educational way, you know? Okay, that is it until you respond, I promise. Thanks.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 15:55, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

@Dr Gonzo5269: I appreciate your compliments. I'm not sure that I warrant them, entirely; I'm not the greatest content contributor on Wikipedia (far from it). But I appreciate the spirit in which you've made them.
I understand your frustration in how you've been received at the talk page of the article. And I understand that it seems unfair. But try to look at it through the perspective of others. I'll present a metaphor that I hope can explain why people were suspicious of you from the beginning.
Let's say that a convenience store owner has been robbed a half-dozen times by gang members. It's always a guy in a blue jacket with a red bandanna on his head and a gun on his hip. It's not always the same person, but they dress and act similarly. Unaware of this history, you step into the store to buy something, and you happen to be wearing a blue jacket and a red bandana on your head, and you carry a gun for self-protection (which you have a license for and are within your rights to carry). You notice the guy staring at you as soon as you enter, and after awhile it creeps you out. You step up to him and demand to know what his problem is. He yells at you that he's going to call the police.
From your perspective you're being unfairly profiled. You just want to buy a few things and leave. From his perspective, another person comes in with the same gang markings as the others, with a gun on his hip, and he's being aggressive. While it's unfair to you, he's just being cautious and when you know all the circumstances it's logical for him to suspect you and try to protect himself and his business. The situation at the Yank Barry article isn't nearly as dramatic as a shop owner being repeatedly robbed, but it is a situation where a series of connected people are showing a pattern that you match in certain ways. They are new editors who show up at the article, push a positive agenda, and accuse everyone else of being biased against Barry. Just as the shop keeper knows that the previous shoppers were up to no good because they ended up committing robberies, the editors at the Yank Barry article know that the previous editors were up to no good because they've been connected to each other technically through the tools that CheckUsers have. So it's not just an issue of paranoia and ganging up on someone with a different viewpoint, there is a reason to suspect people who fit that pattern because in the past they've been proven to be connected to each other (and the group as a whole works for Yank Barry in some capacity or another).
All of this is exacerbated by how aggressive Yank Barry's people are. They sent out a letter threatening to sue people, and followed it up with a press release online doing the same. I suspect that they've also used autodialers to harass one of the prominent editors at the article. In short, they don't restrict their disruption to Wikipedia. That only increases the level of animosity that's going to be directed at anyone proven to be connected to Barry's people, or who show signs that they may be. We have a guideline called "assume good faith" but much time has been wasted at the article in the past trying to accommodate people who clearly had no real interest in improving the article, and just wanted to promote Yank Barry by any means they can.
I've said before that I don't think you're connected to that group of people. You don't fit the pattern exactly, you're not a single-purpose account (SPA) focused entirely on Barry. You aren't as nasty in your comments as other editors. You haven't been quick to attack everyone, you've been willing to make compromises, and in general you seem to be a much more reasonable person. I don't feel that you're being paid to promote Barry, but that instead you're trying to make the article better from your perspective. Cwobeel suggested that you try editing other articles, and I'll echo that. Right now nobody can edit the Yank Barry article anyway, so try to expand your contributions a bit. On the one hand, it will give you experience in article improvement that you can use at the Barry article. On the other hand, it will help prove that you're not an SPA (which I already know but which other people aren't as sure about). You've been trained as a social studies teacher, are there any articles where your training will come in handy?
In general, if you want to have better treatment at the article, try to focus on what will make the article better, and not how unfair Barry is being treated. I have to urge you not to declare your personal admiration for Barry or his charities. It does cast doubt on your motives and is not in the spirit of WP:NPOV. At the same time, anyone who flat-out says that they despise Barry and his organizations is just as unwelcome. I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but there was a time in the past where people were using the article and its talk page to make extreme and unsubstantiated accusations of Barry's character, and the effort back then was to remove the defamation from the article. More recently we've had the opposite problem, where we've been trying to keep away promotion, but know that anything unsubstantiated that is positive or negative will be resisted. If the efforts at the article appear to be negatively motivated right now, it's only because of all of the PR people trying to twist the article into a puff piece. But look at the talk page of the article two years ago and you'll see horrible attack which were deleted. Also look at the edits here, here, and here. As recently as October of last year there were people using Barry's talk page to personally threaten him and make (what seem to me) disgusting remarks. So the article has had disruption of both kinds, both complimentary toward Barry and negative toward him. Neither is acceptable.
One more point, about neutrality... Our policy on neutrality does not say that articles have to have a balance of complimentary and critical information. Our policy is that we approach the article creation from a neutral viewpoint. If our reliable sources are laudatory on an article subject, the article is going to seem favorable to it. If our reliable sources are critical, then the article will show the same. Neutrality means that we reflect what our sources say. The problem with the Yank Barry article is that most of what we've been able to verify through independent reliable sources isn't very complimentary to Barry. Maybe it's because the media likes to emphasize negativity to stir up controversy and sell newspapers/magazines. Most of what we find that reflects well on Barry comes through unreliable sources. Press releases, web pages that are controlled by Barry's PR people, or web sites that only repeat what Barry's people have told them (like the Canadian Museum of Music web site). It has made it challenging to develop the article because I feel like there are important pieces of information that are missing that we can't find citations for. We've been successful at finding bits and pieces of things, like the information under the "musical career" section, but even that is sparse and is the product of a lot of searching and verification.
I'll leave you with the comments that John Nagle left for BeadCatz, another blocked editor who was trying to promote Barry. Read it here under the topic "Promotional editing". It's advice meant for the organization trying to promote Barry, but it explains what we're trying to accomplish at the article. -- Atama 18:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
@Atama: See, your response here is why I respect you as an editor and strive to represent myself as you do. I understand everything you just said. The analogy makes perfect sense. I was extremely naive when I signed up for this account and I was, flat out, taken aback at my first few days on Wikipedia. I was simply not prepared for what transpired and I reacted poorly. I have apologized and taken responsibility for my mistakes. I make a concerted effort every time I sign in, now, to use the "vinegar and honey to attract flies" approach. WP:NPOV was one of the first policies I read, prior to posting anything, that I thought, that is how I want to come across. You will notice I did not go to the Yank Barry page and start deleting negative information or campaigning against the extortion section, or anything of that nature. Put quite simply, I am a supporter of public service. Anyone, especially anyone with money, who decides to give back, has my respect. That certainly does not mean I can not edit from a neutral point of view. Another article I have contributed to the subject is an Olympic gold medalist. Do I like it when athletes from the United States go to the Olympics and capture a gold medal? You bet I do. Would I ever add anything to their encyclopedia page that is false? Absolutely NOT! If I am the man in your analogy, I am now at a point where I am trying to change my appearance. I still believe what I believe, but it was my initial intent to improve articles (not just Yank Barry), and that is where I am refocusing my efforts. There are several editors working on the Yank Barry article that, I feel, are trying to do a very good job. You are certainly one of them, that is why it is important to me that you not have the wrong idea about my intentions. There are several editors working on the Yank Barry article that, I feel, are there only to highlight the negative and tear down the positive. That does bother me greatly, and it bothers me that if an editor rallies against that behavior then immediately he is a puppet. I was called a sock in my first week on Wikipedia, I had never heard of Yank Barry when I started this account at the end of May. I live in the United States. I have never been to Canada or Bulgaria. I have never seen, met, or spoken to Yank Barry. The other subject I've been contributing to, Jordan Burroughs I have at least seen. I've never talked to him or met him, but I've seen him in real life. Bottom line, everything you said makes sense to me and I greatly appreciate you taking the time to convey your thoughts. Yes, I have many other topics I would like to jump into. I've said it several times, and I swear it is true, I keep coming back to the Yank Barry page to campaign for neutrality. I agree with you, use what sources you have, positive or negative. I have never been in favor of adding puff to the article and I have never been in favor of deleting facts from the article. I, sincerely, thank you for your time, and I look forward to working with you further on up the road. Please, feel free to respond to this, or help me out any time you see an opportunity for constructive criticism. I respect your opinion, just try to be nice. Lord knows I have made mistakes on Wikipedia, but the overall reaction to them has been mean spirited, pompous, and childish. No one wants to work in an atmosphere like that. Thanks again. Good day.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 15:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

TRPoD Changing My Vote... Advice?[edit]

I was hoping you could offer some input on a frustrating situation. On the Deepak Chopra Talk Page there's an RfC going on, with a Survey of whether criticism of Chopra should get top billing in the lede. I voted Opposed for BLP reasons, but then TheRedPenOfDoom posted immediately afterward in the Survey that both I and Littleolive oil had really meant to vote Support and claimed I actually endorsed a position that was the opposite of what I'd said. He redacted Littleolive oil's name when she protested, but despite my repeated request on the Talk Page, TRPoD's page and my own page (the last=a pretty concise summary), he has stubbornly refused to retract the vote of "Support" in my name.

It's one thing to misrepresent me in a discussion, but insisting to others that I'd reversed my vote on an RfC Survey is detrimental to my voice on WP and unethical. I'm sorry to take up your time with this; I'm at my wit's end with TheRedPenOfDoom's behavior here, but I don't want to waste the community's time with an AE or similarly disruptive procedural. Any feedback would be welcomed. The Cap'n (talk) 23:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

@Askahrc: I'm tempted to say that TRPoD wasn't saying that you !voted Support, but that your opposition argument strengthens the Support argument. I've made similar suggestions before in discussions, saying that the way a person argued the opposite viewpoint from myself is self-defeating.
However, he then struck Littleolive oil from his comment, as if to say "sorry for misrepresenting your !vote" so now I'm not entirely sure what the heck he meant. *scratch head* I'll ask him to clarify. -- Atama 15:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Another potential (but unlabeled) op-d[edit]

Hi Atama. Last time I asked you to review a source that I thought was an op-ed, you gave me the smackdown (playfully speaking) and I felt like I should have done all that research myself (even if I was helping her on a pro-bono basis). Now I have a similar situation, but in this case I have prepared more materials and am more confident in my assessment. And I thought maybe I should invite you to a round 2. I know, boxing metaphors might be a poor choice because it depicts battlegrounding, but... CorporateM (Talk) 01:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh nevermind, user:Crisco 1492 just removed it. Talking about taking the wind out of my boxing metaphor. CorporateM (Talk) 01:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
TKO! -- Atama 15:07, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Policies on my current restrictions[edit]

Hi There.

I was wondering if you could provide some links / documentation regarding the new blocks which I will need to abide by. Thank You. BDBJack (talk) 11:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

New BdB account[edit]

I just wanted to bring to your attention that there is a new BdB corporate account, User:BDBIsrael, which has hit the ground running by making an edit request not at the BdB talk page, where it can be seen and commented on by other editors, but on a random administrator's talk page. This is precisely the kind of wikilawyering that has been counterproductive in the past. I think that BDB needs to be restricted to one account, and that account needs to be instructed only to post on the talk page of the BdB article. Coretheapple (talk) 16:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Regards, Coretheapple. I am surprised at the number of notifications the system is giving me from you. As I said elsewhere, I am unable to edit the BDB talk page for some reason, so I am making noncontroversial requests at the talk pages of administrators familiar with the case. I am responsible for ensuring Banc De Binary's ongoing compliance with Wikipedia policy and do not intend to "wikilawyer" by asking that our legal identity be properly reflected in the lede and by asking that the article be recognized as not an orphan, in that both are incontrovertible facts. In my position, I hope I am familiar enough with policy to wonder at your statement that a corporation should be restricted to one account, because policy actually requires a corporation to be restricted to zero accounts. BDB employees and contractors edit personally and independently. If you believe a BDB employee or contractor is mishandling a conflict of interest, that is a matter for the noticeboard, where there is an open discussion.
It is unclear why Coretheapple is disseminating the information about this edit request rather than simply affirming that the article is not an orphan and the tag should be removed.
Atama, My intent is to facilitate discussion on the talk page if I am allowed to edit there. I believe, based on discussion with an OTRS volunteer, that there is consensus for "stubbing" the article, and that "stubbing" would also reduce the number of requests and potential for cross-talk. I would like your advice on bringing the article into Wikipedia compliance by "stubbing" or other means. BDBIsrael (talk) 17:03, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
There's no consensus at this point for anything. I'm hoping to try to get a consensus formed through mediation but haven't gotten to it yet. It will devote a lot of time from me, which requires me to neglect other things (which is why I don't do mediation much anymore) but I think it's important that some kind of mediation be done (even something informal and voluntary). I'll try to get the framework started on the article talk page soon, even today if possible.
Coretheapple, I think we're between a rock and a hard place here. On the one hand I'm not comfortable with having multiple BDB employees participating in discussions. Two is probably fine, though I might suggest considering them to be considered as a single voice in consensus discussions (as in WP:MEAT) but I worry if there are suddenly a dozen participants. (Though if things get to that point we'd probably have another discussion on a public noticeboard, WP:AN might be best, to decide whether to ban the entire organization if it is that disruptive.)
On the other hand, we want to encourage transparency (which BDBIsrael is providing, as BDBJack has been) and discouraging multiple accounts may have the effect of encouraging account sharing, which we very much don't want. So for now I don't see why BDBIsrael's participation should be discouraged. We'll see how this plays out, I guess. -- Atama 18:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Regards, Atama. I may have misread your instructions in mediation, as my posting a full list of concerns was regarded as disruptive and became the subject of an administrative thread. It may take you a little time to catch up on the events of this weekend. I await your further instructions as to mediation and any advice you can provide about the risk of noncompliance from my account or that of BDBJack. BDBIsrael (talk) 15:31, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Though I tried I couldn't get to a PC much at all this weekend, so I wasn't able to monitor that discussion page, I'll try to catch up. Thanks for the message. -- Atama 15:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
You may wish to comment on the new proposal at the administrator thread. I am unsure how administrator threads are intended to interact with mediation agreements already in place. It may be advisable to move mediation to a fresh page. BDBIsrael (talk) 19:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the notification. -- Atama 20:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome, Atama. I do not understand how it is determined who is an "involved" administrator. Since you have been called "involved", are you able to comment on whether my post was in accord with your expectations, or whether it was disruptive? As I stated, it was also in accord with the OTRS instructions, which stated, "I would encourage you to post the concerns that you have mentioned on to the talk page and provide as much supporting evidence as you can. This may help the community focus on specific issues within the article. Just as important, I would be judicious in the way it is presented, as I would hate for it to be incorrectly construed as a 'list of demands'." I don't believe I was demanding when I was merely stating the points at issue. BDBIsrael (talk) 21:11, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
The policy regarding when and how an administrator becomes involved is at WP:INVOLVED. Specifically, it says:
"In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputed cases in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute.
One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator 'involved'."
I've made attempts to stay uninvolved, in the sense that I haven't given any opinions on my preference for article content, or made any significant changes to the article space (I haven't edited it at all) or otherwise shown that I have a preference or bias toward one opinion or another at the article. Mediation generally requires an uninvolved person too, so I felt that my attempts to mediate would not in any way prevent my taking action as an administrator. If someone expresses the opinion that I'm involved at the article, somehow, and can show me how, I'll voluntarily withdraw from attempts to mediate and recuse myself from taking any further administrative actions. I don't see where anyone has said that yet (if you see it please let me know). -- Atama 21:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Atama. Your clarification is very helpful. Pardon me if I misstated anything; I believe that TParis used words to the effect that you were involved as a mediator, meaning that you had taken an active role there, and I regret that I do not have the thread handy. I do not believe you to have been "involved" by the definition you give. My question is whether my list of concerns was in accord with your stated mediation process. I trust that mediation is still ongoing at this moment. BDBIsrael (talk) 21:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Shugden socks[edit]

Please see Bushranger's talk page. Bush seems busy in real life. These 3 accounts are the same person, in order from newest to oldest:

@Heicth: I'm sorry but I think you'll need to explain things for me a bit. Is March22nd the sockmaster? I understand they all seem to be pro-Shugden accounts but what connects them together? -- Atama 01:21, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Prasangika37 and Essence37 both end in "37", and were created within a couple of weeks of each other. To me its obvious they are the same. March22nd repeatedley promoted (diff1 diff2 diff3 etc. etc.) a self-published book called "Heart Jewel" from Tharpa publications, and was opposed by CFynn and myself. Now Prasangika37 states "I think in the past there have been accusations of self-publishing as a reason to not use Tharpa Publications points" and "If I can't find anything we might be backed into a corner using just the Heart Jewel text" and inserted the same book into the article! Yes March22nd is the sockmaster. Heicth (talk) 17:18, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Private Mail[edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, Atama. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

New puppet[edit]

Looks as though newly created Foglio23 is a new puppet, making edits identical to Dany4444 you already blocked.Epeefleche (talk) 17:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

@Epeefleche: Thanks, they are now blocked. It's pretty obvious. -- Atama 15:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Best. --Epeefleche (talk) 15:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
More of the same ... --Epeefleche (talk) 00:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not so sure it's a sock. The edit looked more like obvious vandalism. The previous editors were spinning the article to be pro-Indiggo. This latest editor blatantly falsified the article by changing the quote to be the opposite of what Morgan said. That's something that was never done in the past. I'm not saying this isn't a sock, the name and the focus on this artist suggests that it might be, and it's also possible that they vandalized out of frustration from their previous edits being undone, but that edit was different enough that I'm not quite yet willing to block per WP:DUCK. -- Atama 15:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
This last edit was almost exactly the same as the earlier edit by blocked sock Dany, changing "booed" to the same laudatory language. I also noted that the most recent puppet Foglio23 had a similar practice of deleting "booed," and changing it to the opposite. Which deletion tendency in addition the one-edit-only editor Troy also had. Which deletion tendency an IP also had. Epeefleche (talk) 16:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
That's good info, thank you. I'll look deeper into this. -- Atama 21:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm still unconvinced. What Joe8877322 did isn't the same as the previous editors. In essence, yes, it's the same. They took negative information which was sourced to NBC's Today.com, and changed it to positive information. But the previous editors didn't just swap words around, they changed it more fully. They gave a different quote by Piers Morgan, a different crowd reaction, and quotes from other judges. What Joe8877322 did was totally contradict the source, which falsified the quote from Piers Morgan. That's more clearly a vandalistic act, and that kind of vandalism is different from the other accounts which were just trying to introduce a positive spin. That's where I see the difference. It might still be the same editor, but unless and until they edit further I can't tell. For now I think a vandalism warning is sufficient. -- Atama 20:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I think there may be some more evidence, which I could share (off-line might be better under the circumstances), but I'm happy to wait for their next edit. I saw some as precisely the same (deleting the same words for example), but defer to your sock-sense. If they are a puppet, and edit more, no doubt they will clarify the matter in due course. Best, and tx. Epeefleche (talk) 23:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with the reverting editor's edit summary here, suggesting we have a new sock. The same RS-supported material is being deleted, on the same spurious basis. As you have been away for 19 days, perhaps user:drmies, who declined to lift the block on one of the puppets (which preceded the other puppets making appearances), can take a look if that is not asking too much. Epeefleche (talk) 04:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Atama[edit]

Hi Atama, I have explained on my own talk page about the user Heicth's accusations :) Prasangika37 (talk) 13:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

"Shota Yasuda" wikipedia page.[edit]

Hello, Atama.

I would like to ask you to restore "Shota Yasuda" you deleted on March 10, 2014 through prod. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chokkoeito (talkcontribs) 16:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

@Chokkoeito: I restored the article, because a proposed deletion can be restored on request. But be warned, it is currently a biography of a living person with absolutely no references, so it is likely to be deleted again. Please make an effort to source the information in the article soon to prevent that fate. -- Atama 16:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Adreno[edit]

Hi Atama. In case user:Guy Macon can't get around to it (I noticed he/she is experiencing health issues), I wanted to draw this post to your attention, as I continue sorting out which currently existing Qualcomm-related pages should really exist. In this case I'm proposing a merge with Snapdragon, which Adreno is a component of. I should eventually be working on improving the Snapdragon page, which probably does warrant its own separate article. CorporateM (Talk) 21:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

me[edit]

Me sockpuppet? Why? Just because I have written more that 1000 words here, and some of them look like this? It could be worth putting together an WP:CHK. Let me know. Thanks AHLM13 talk 18:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

@AHLM13: It's obvious that you're not a new editor. Your behavior from your first edits seem like that of an experienced editor. That doesn't make you a sockpuppet, you could have edited previously under an abandoned account (which may be perfectly legitimate depending on the circumstances) or as an IP. The reason why suspicions were raised was because one of the articles you've edited has been besieged by numerous sockpuppets, run by the person who contacted you via IP. You've changed the Abdul Qayum (imam) article to reflect a version advocated by a prolific sockpuppeteer. I think there is plenty of evidence to suggest that you may be another sock, yet I don't think there's anything conclusive, and my gut feeling is that you aren't a sockpuppet of Aldota, due to your overall body of work.
I'll also warn you to refrain from saying that a person's edits "seem as WP:VANDAL". Saying that a person's actions appear like vandalism is the same as declaring a person to be a vandal; regardless of whether you try to draw a distinction between the two there is no real difference. Vandalism requires that a person's actions seem willfully disruptive, and GorgeCustersSabre's actions definitely do not appear to be such. I'll warn you that you can disagree with an editor's point of view, and argue that what they're doing is wrong, but calling someone a vandal without evidence is a personal attack. You seem to understand that fact, since you warned Aldota about doing so on your own user talk page, yet you're doing it yourself. Argue about the article's content, but don't make such accusations about a person's intentions unless you have some evidence to back them up. -- Atama 19:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

OK thanks. AHLM13 talk 12:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Jin's latest[edit]

Atama, TekkenJinKazama's latest sock FreshiaBomanberham (talk · contribs) just recreated the Death/Assassination of Theo van Gogh article, which really pushing this into duck status. If you have the time, would you mind looking at the SPI? Apologies for trying to skip the line at SPI (which I can see is backed up a bit), but trying to limit the amount of cleanup needed. Thanks. Ravensfire (talk) 14:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you as always. Ravensfire (talk) 16:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
My pleasure. This latest sock sure left a lot of messes. -- Atama 18:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

A username chosen only for harassment[edit]

Hi. Please review this diff: A user calling himself "User:Codename MeatCommand" is making a retaliatory edit with battlefield mentality. The edit itself is okay, it is only meant to show off this username, insinuating that Codename Lisa and I are engaged in canvassing.

Of course, he'd be half-correct: CL called me on my IM and asked me to review edits by "User:Taliska" (who had been refusing to participate Talk:Fraps#Grammar: Hyphen and age discussion) before it turns into an edit war. She said she couldn't ask for a WP:3O because there was no discussion yet. Well, I thought Taliska was not going into much trouble to be civil or a team worker. I think he is retaliating. This diff is also somewhat revealing.

The beauty of this harassment attempt is that even if the account is blocked, this accusation will remain. Better than going to WP:ANI and being rebuffed, isn't it? Oh, and one more thing: He has also pulled the "native speaker" card too; just like last time.

Fleet Command (talk) 04:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, they were right when they said, "Indefinite block is eminent." Because Codename MeatCommand is indefinitely-blocked. I've blocked Taliska also for 3 days. Hopefully this will get them to cut it out, act civil, and take this dispute to the talk page. -- Atama 15:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Atama. I wanted to say thank you. I noticed that an admin also suppressed the username from the log too. I guess I must be partying now... It is just a shame he chose that combative edit summary when he did, because his edit was a valid compromise which I'd have gladly accepted. As much as I can help it, I will try to invite more than one external parties to discussions, so that hopefully, we'd be troubling you less often.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 16:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, man. I owe you one. You are eminent. Fleet Command (talk) 12:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi again. Sorry to bothering you on this issue but we have another case of harassment. Codename GrammarCommand made this edit and it seems it is 96.253.76.142's user account. As a matter of fact, it seems this IP user had been present in all other cases of accusations of sock/meat-puppetry of me and FleetCommand that you dismissed. In fact, FC is now proposing this is not three separate cases but one and the same harasser.

Apart from requesting to block 96.253.76.142 and its user accounts, what else can I do to put an end to this? I can certainly ask FC never to enter a discussion in which I am involved but doesn't that make other users as targets? Indeed, in April this year, five Wikipedians were separately accused of have close connections with me, three of which you attended.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 20:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa What I have done was certainly uncivil. For that, I expect to be blocked. However, all socks applies in both directions. Perhaps, you may want to stop edit warring over minutia. Perhaps, then I will just go away or at least find another uncivil wikipedean to harass. Codename GrammarCommand (talk) 21:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I pinky-promise that I won't edit war. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 21:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, abuse of multiple accounts is always prohibited, but only one person here has been shown to be engaging in that behavior (and is now blocked). -- Atama 23:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

atama[edit]

Atama I undid your edit in east london mosque, because it is true, but gorgecurtesabre says that islamic centre and mosque are same thing, but it is not. Foe example look here [1]. 86.157.22.8 (talk) 18:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC) Sockpuppet Aldota

I have another question, you deleted also this one [2], i do not know why, anyway, do you know the answer for that question?

For example when you deted this one [3], wikipedia did not notify me. 86.157.22.8 (talk) 18:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Aldota, but you're effectively banned from Wikipedia due to your repeated sockpuppetry efforts. Any edits you make while evading your block can be reverted regardless of whether or not they are accurate.
As for notifications not working, the page explaining the notification system is here. Based on what Mediawiki says, "new users" may not receive notifications for reverts. So my guess is that you weren't getting those notifications because your accounts were too new. I hope that explains what was happening. -- Atama 18:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Not because they were new, in some new account i was notified and in some old page I was not notified. What a pity that all my edits will be removed. Now can I do? I can not leave wikipedia. 86.157.22.8 (talk) 18:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I could be mean and tell you "tough luck" but I don't like being cruel to people. You are in a bind, I'll admit. Wikipedia can forgive editors who have been repeatedly breaking policies and guidelines, and even for those who are banned (either "de facto" banned like you are, or more explicitly banned). But part of that forgiveness will require you to show that you're sincere about changing your behavior, and the first part of that is taking a break from Wikipedia. There is something called the "standard offer", and while that isn't a guarantee that you would be allowed back it often works.
But you do need to stop editing Wikipedia through your sockpuppets first. If you can't do that then I'm not sure what you can do. It doesn't do you any good to have your accounts discovered over and over, and your edits undone. It doesn't do Wikipedia any good in having to deal with your sockpuppets. So nobody wins. I'd love it if you could reform and change, and if User:Aldota could be unblocked and participate in Wikipedia constructively. But it will have to start with you. Would you be capable of staying away for six months? -- Atama 19:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Atama did you receive my email? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.73.19 (talk) 19:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Quick question[edit]

Hiya Atama, I had a minor issue that I didn't think was worth starting an ANI thread over, and you were the first active admin who came to mind, here I am. See User talk:217.208.57.69; the IP there keeps reverting the SharedIP template. To my understanding, per WP:BLANKING those aren't generally subject to removal. What do you think? I know I wouldn't be violating 3RR to keep adding it. Is a warning in order, or a userpage restriction? —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 17:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

And while I was writing this, the IP posted this. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 18:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
@Mendaliv: You're right that our policy says those templates need to say. The statement "There are no known registered Wikipedia users linked to this IP" is meaningless... Known to whom? And just because there isn't one right now, if this IP is reassigned in the near future then that doesn't matter. The IP seems to acknowledge that the address is shared so I don't see what the conflict is.
I think the reason why the editor is wanting to blank their userpage can be seen here. Their block log also shows that their talkpage access was revoked for a week. Further action along those lines may be necessary if they continue with this behavior. -- Atama 18:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Closing the RFC[edit]

This is the blocked user 101.0.* / Akuri. Feel free to block this IP after reading my comment, but please at least read it first.

At ANI you said, "It would unduly penalize the contributing editors in good standing by invalidating the entire RFC, but the IP's comments themselves should be struck and not given weight when determining consensus." The only other person who commented, Future Perfect, also said the RFC should stay open. But someone has unilaterally closed it anyway, even though that's the opposite of what ANI decided. Is there a way to make the consensus at ANI get followed? 83.128.193.153 (talk) 12:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, when the RFC was closed, the RFC question was removed from the RFC listing. People who look at that list can no longer see what the RFC is about, only that it was opened by a blocked user. 83.128.193.153 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll look into this. (FYI, you don't have to evade a block to contact me, you should be able to send me an email.) I think what I'll do is continue the discussion at ANI, so that it's not divided, and be sure to ping the RFC closer, TRPoD, and FPaS to get this straightened out. -- Atama 18:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
How can I send you email? I can't send it with the Wikipedia email feature, because when my account got blocked my ability to send email was revoked. 217.123.27.75 (talk) 23:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
In that case, just post on your talk page and add {{ping|Atama}} and I'll get notification of it. -- Atama 00:22, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
That isn't possible either, because my talk page access was revoked also. Is there any other way? 217.123.27.75 (talk) 05:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

SpongebobLawyerPants block evasion?[edit]

New user seems to be a new incarnation of the blocked User:SpongebobLawyerPants. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

@LuckyLouie: Thanks, yes it's pretty blatant. I've blocked this sock, and deleted the article they created (and closed the AfD opened for that article). -- Atama 19:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Thandi Zambo/Moyo[edit]

Checking up on a now-stale COIN thread I raised last month, I found that you'd looked into an earlier investigation against the same user (Thandi Zambo changed their username to Thandi Moyo). As detailed in the newer COIN thread, Moyo is doing the same odd "I have no COI, but have personal permission from Conor Mccreedy to use this content" thing that several earlier SPA editors have done, and is now silently minor-editing the COI template off of the page. I'm concerned that the whole article may have been written by SPA/COI socks, over the years. Would appreciate a second opinion if you have a moment. --McGeddon (talk) 10:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

@McGeddon: Sure, I'll look at it. -- Atama 15:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually this ended up spiralling tediously into Moyo being blocked for harassment, and admitting to using another account, just a short while ago. --McGeddon (talk) 15:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Abandoning an old account and creating a new one is generally fine, especially if the old account has a clean block log. Harassing people, on the other hand, isn't fine. The block is appropriate, and if Thandi doesn't shape up after this block expires the next one will probably be indefinite. -- Atama 16:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Sure, abandoning the old account is fine, but Moyo said "I edit under another name now because of him!!!" a few hours ago. If that's true, then it can only either mean "I changed from Zambo to Moyo because of McGeddon" (which can't be the case because that username changed happened in May, a month before I ever edited the Mccreedy article) or "I have begun editing under a second username since June 2014". --McGeddon (talk) 16:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I think either way it's just a nonsense statement if they are still editing as Thandi, and as of today they still are. It would be like someone matter-of-factly concluding an anecdote by saying, "and then I became a badger." Somewhat Monty Python-ish in my opinion. -- Atama 16:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Thinking about it more, I suppose it was just a lame excuse to justify the troll account User:McGeddon1. Still a nonsense statement; if they were compelled to "edit under another name" they wouldn't be editing as their regular account anymore. But it's already known that the sock is Thandi's, as stated here. -- Atama 17:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Iss246 & psyc12 @ OHP NPOV dispute[edit]

Hi Atama. When you get time, can you please look at the Talk:Occupational health psychology page. I recently checked the article, after voluntarily leaving it to other editors to entirely re-write 4 months ago now. However no-one did. Instead, to my surprise and dismay, psyc12 and iss246 added even more 'selective' material to the article. Psyc12 & iss246 are the sole authors. I recently added a Wikipedia:NPOV dispute tag, as a last resort, but again iss246 quickly deleted it, even though policy states to leave it there, until resolved. I have not reverted as I won't edit war, and frankly want to just get on with my editing the very large number of other Wiki articles, on divergent topics, that I have been actively contributing to the project, over the past 4 months. However this OHP article remains clearly biased, and something needs to be done with it now, by someone other than these 2 editors. Is deletion an option?Mrm7171 (talk) 02:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Just noticed my comments here have spurred another editor, bilby, to make some independent additions, for the first time in the history of the article. Bilby was one of those editors, 4 months ago, see here: [4] that said they would re-write it when they had time, (fair enough) obviously conceding, that it needed this 're-write'. (Sorry, didn't mean to guilt trip you into some action Bilby!) Unfortunately the need to entirely re-write this coatrack article, as Richardkeatinge pointed out, is not solved by adding more text? The article remains very biased and iss246 removing correct Wikipedia:NPOV dispute tags is not helpful either. Neutrality and NPOV is very much needed still.Mrm7171 (talk) 06:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)