User talk:Atsme

en:User:Serialjoepsycho/sunshine/message

Push to post a message

Verifiability is a cornerstone of Wikipedia, and is one of the policies that has served as part of the bedrock of editing philosophy. "The threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is Verifiability, not truth." While this simple and strict statement has been a source of derision by many newcomers, switching the focus from truth to verifiability is part of what allows Wikipedia to function. In an encyclopedia built by volunteers, in which no real vetting of an individual's expert status is feasible, this policy simplifies discussion greatly. Instead of relying on debate over the validity of a fact or viewpoint, the debate focuses on the easier to tackle issue of whether it is verifiable. Even if experts could be vetted, this philosophy is still preferable. Allowing experts to run the show would merely invite them to introduce their personal biases into articles. ~Someguy1221

Allegations of COI and the COIN fiasco

Except for my very first run of newbie stupid in September 2011, I actually did do what I was supposed to do regarding the fish articles. No reason to cry over spilled milk but at least now my mind is at ease knowing that I acted above board from day one. I did disclose/declare COI on the talk pages of both paddlefish and sturgeon before any edits were made to the fish articles in 2014. Oct 14, 2011, Oct 14, 2011

The only response I received to my posts on the TPs of those articles was made on the Paddlefish TP 2 years later from an editor who collaborated with me on all of the subject articles plus a few others:

I don't think any video showing people caught into questionable activities would fly here, unless the article was exactly about these questionable activity and those people. There would be concerns related to WP:BLP and privacy. About the documentary, that is probably a decent external link. By the way, why you editing the paddlefish article(s) would imply COI? Are you a paddlefish? --cyclopia^speak! 15:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm a primitive species.  Self-trout I made the COI comment back in 2011 before I fully understood what it meant. Oh, and I'm still working on uploading some bowfin video. I also have some footage of a paddlefish filter feeding, which should probably go with the American paddlefish article, and not the paddlefish article, or should it? And what about the taxobox on both the American paddlefish article and Paddlefish article? The image is an American paddlefish which doesn't look anything like a Chinese paddlefish. It was confusing enough trying to keep the information in the article itself separated especially considering there are only two extant species with more differences between them than similarities. Anyway, look over it when you get a chance. Atsme☯
^Consult 05:53, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, trout myself as well, I didn't notice it was a 2011 comment! I now still want to go ahead with the bowfin, but I'll have a look at the paddlefish situation when I can. --cyclopia^speak! 07:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, same editor participated in the Alligator gar GA review and he knew about the COI as evidenced above. He had no issue with the inline citations to Earthwave. In fact, he insisted on keeping citations in the lede: [1]
Another  Self-trout for not remembering. I just hope what happened to me never happens to anyone else. Atsme^📞📧 03:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Is self-trouting the latest wiki-sport? ;-) I don't know if you have noticed but the COIN editor claims they are taking a "time-out" for "feedback". What a shame that those editors who can perhaps offer the best feedback are banned from his Talk page!DrChrissy ^(talk) 12:22, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but if you'll notice, my trouts are smaller than yours. This is one of those instances when smaller is better. Atsme^📞📧 12:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Well that depends what you want to do with your trouts!DrChrissy ^(talk) 12:52, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Grilled with a garlic butter lemon sauce over a campfire situated beside a beautiful mountain stream. Atsme^📞📧 13:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

BBQ-d in wood coals, wrapped in tin foil containing lemon and slices of sweet potato.DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:10, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:Don't template the regulars

Templating regulars with user warnings that are unwarranted is an abuse of their intended use, and may be construed as WP:Uncivil or WP:harassment. It is always better to WP:AGF and write a polite warning advising that editor of the problem. Templates are not a requirement for blocking disruptive behavior. It is also not wise to use templates or written warnings, polite or otherwise, as a ploy to game the system in an effort to distract from your own noncompliance with WP:PAG, such as WP:edit warring or WP:OWN behavior. Sticking to "did you know we had a policy here" mentality tends to be counter-productive in resolving the issue, as it can be construed as being patronising and uncivil. Atsme^📞📧

Actually for stuff like edit warring templates are prefered as they are standardized and reduce confusion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:45, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes they might avoid confusion, but they can be very scary to receive until you know what is going on. Some editors use these deliberately to harass others, a behaviour which I believe should be prevented somehow.DrChrissy ^(talk) 11:52, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

That's interesting Doc. Of course the real answer is to avoid behaviour that leads to templating in the first place. You and Atsme both know this. -Roxy the non edible dog™ (resonate) 12:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Removing noncompliant material is not edit warring. The editor who starts reverting the work of others with invalid edit summaries is the one who is edit warring. Instead, we're seeing one editor being ganged up on which actually stems from WP:OWN behavior at an article where a particular POV is being pushed and information is being suppressed. NPOV is one of our core content policies and the passage I removed and expanded had been disputed as noncompliant with NPOV and MEDRS. No RfC was called to keep the noncompliant material, therefore, since it was disputed as noncompliant, I had every right to remove it and make the lede compliant. Any editor who wanted to restore the disputed noncompliant material must do so via consensus. Each time my edit was reverted, it was to remove compliant material and restore disputed noncompliant material. That is edit warring. The onus to replace noncompliant material is on the editor who wants to restore it. Read the PAGs. I agree that we know what edit warring is, but it appears you don't. Atsme^📞📧 17:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Reverting one edit as I did here is not edit warring either, but I received a template for it. I am sure the Project Medicine crew have no problem with this, or anything certain privileged editors may do, based on what I have observed. IMO, this favoritism is non-neutral and is very destructive to the project overall. petrarchan47คุก 19:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion: since Atsme has stated this is going to ArbCom (which hopefully will settle the issue once and for all), we all stop telling each other that none of us understands policy, and let ArbCom sort it out... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

How 'bout leading by example? petrarchan47คุก 19:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I have yet to see a single editor read WP:DTTR and then WP:TTR without concluding that TTR has a far better argument. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Guy Macon, this discussion is a couple of months old. I can't archive it while on this block so I ask that you respect my TP and please limit your comments to the appropriate block discussion below. Atsme^📞📧 21:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

SLIET again

Hello Atsme this is Singh.. SLIET.. well thanks for the support..as before..i have not any idea of working on wikipedia...and was having problem with references and making verification...so yeah imean i can do..it and will on SLIET..and yes i'll look on those preferecence of Virginia Tech and University of Houston or any other University.

Thanks Atsme... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Singhaniket255 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Singhaniket255, the SLIET article will be a good one for you to learn on. I'll be watching as you work and will help with the copy-editing. Don't hesitate to ask questions if you hit a road block. I'm happy to help. Atsme^📞📧 19:58, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

thanks a lot Atsme it'll be a great respect and experience working with you!!

Talkback

Hello, Atsme. You have new messages at Northamerica1000's talk page.
Message added 03:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Advocacy ducks

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Advocacy ducks. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

Have a nice day Atsme Govindaharihari (talk) 13:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

How sweet! Thank you, Govindaharihari. Your cupcake made it a nice day. Atsme^📞📧 14:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

i just wanted to say that i enjoyed reading the article WP:AVDUCK. Thanks for creating it. One of the crucial issues your article highlights is that one has to be frankly political if one wishes to be a successful editor on WP. One problem that can arise, and that your article does not deal with, is if a new or relatively new editor confronts a duck or a flock of ducks who may also have the support of an Admin or a few Admins. (Such support may consist of an Admin building a tool to invite new editors who are having serious problems with a senior editor to offer criticism of that senior editor on a pseudo complaint page--the objective being to protect the senior editor from being repeatedly taken to ANI or Dispute Resolution, and also when new editors make their serious complaints on the pseudo complaint page it would be easier to tackle them through banning or blocking--away from the public eye of ANI and Dispute Resolutions.) Invariably the new editor is pushed into a corner and demoralized by the flock of ducks with their Admin allies (who are armed with tools like WP:ARBIPA); the new editor may stop editing on WP or if he continues he will no longer do any bold editing. A third, and most unfortunate possibility is that if the new editor is blocked, then he/she may resort to vandalism on WP (including showering abuses at the blocking Admin and/or others) through anonymous socking. Sure, ANI, dispute resolution, and ArbCom exist but first they are often very time consuming and secondly in my experience if you are taking on a flock of ducks (who moreover may have the support of a few Admins), then you will almost always lose the argument unless you have sufficient number of allies to support you on boards like ANI on WP (which is unlikely if you are a new or relatively new editor on WP).

I think one key reform that needs to be implemented to strike at the root of this problem is getting rid of 'bad' Admins; and giving incentives to retain 'good' Admins on WP. I don't know the details of how this should be done though, particularly since WP is understandably uncomfortable with getting rid of any Admins unless there is a strong reason to do so in view of the drop in people willing to be WP Admins. Soham321 (talk) 21:32, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Soham321, I think I'm too disheartened about the ANI process and the biased responses of a couple admins, one of whom I once held in high regard, to respond with any sense of neutrality, so I'll just say "yep" and leave it at that. Thx for your comments - they are food for thought. Atsme^📞📧 17:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

AAAS

You should have received an email from me regarding AAAS a few weeks ago - can you please fill out the form linked from that email? If you did not receive the email (check your spam folder), let me know. Thanks, Nikkimaria (talk) 17:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, @Nikkimaria: - I did receive the email on May 25th - Your Individual subscription has been successfully entered for Science Online. I tried it out, and was able to access what I needed. Hopefully it will stay that way!! Thank you so very much for making this happen. Atsme^📞📧 22:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Hm - I think perhaps that's the Elsevier email? I was referring to one for WP:AAAS, which didn't launch until June...but I'm certainly happy you're enjoying Elsevier access as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Nikkimaria The email I referenced issued an AAAS# - Science Magazine. I also have access to Science Direct (Elsevier) so I've got access to both. You did good!! Atsme^📞📧 22:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, interesting. Happy to hear that it worked out! Nikkimaria (talk) 23:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

You have guts

Please don't take my decisions personally. It's just based on what I see and understand. Everyone has their own point of view. I came here to say that I admire your gut. You have the courage to stand up to admins. I have always been afraid because they can pull up any WP policy/guideline and take a millisecond to hit that block link. I admire that quality of yours. You don't see that around. I, as editor, feel discouraged and give the impression that admins are high superiority and there's nothing you can do to fight that fight. I am not sure if I am the only one feeling this way. That's it. Just a little words of encouragement, if you will. Fight that ANI report of yours. At least you will know if it was worth fighting that battle. Bye (: Callmemirela {Talk} ♑ 00:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

You have character, Callmemirela, and I truly appreciate it. I thank you and respect your courage. Let's keep improving the stubs and do what we can to expand them to GAs and FAs. That's why we're here!! Maintain neutrality, make your content informational and encyclopedic but keep the prose engaging! We want people to read what we write! Collaborate with editors who are experts in their field - respect the project teams - ignore the disruption the best you can, and keep moving forward to build WP into an encyclopedia students and teachers will respect as a RS. Happy editing!! Atsme^📞📧 00:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

kindness and respect

I've been here to long. I don't even remember my first account name. Hell I've used a few Ip's before this account and I've used a few when i forgot I even made this account. You know I had to argue the case that the state of Hawaii is not currently under military occupation. I'm sure you are aware there are a number of secessionist movements in the United States. You may or may not be aware that there are a number in Hawaii. These are fringe movements with low followings. It's necessary as you can understand to not give these movements any weight. We can't be the ones to legitimize these movements. They have to do so on their own. But the individual in question they didn't understand that their small movement was fringe and that would be wikipedia legitimizing it if we included it. I think it took a month to deal with them. Needless to say I was reaching the extent of my kindness and my respect.

You're tired Atsme. You're worn down. Why did you open a GA review right after that one closed? Honestly was it anything more than stubbornness? The prior one had just closed after sitting still for days. Was the way that went down wrong? Yes I will agree that it was. I've said that it was and prior I've made my opinion about this loud and clear. You were there. And because it was wrong in that GAR I asked some things of the individuals there. I asked them not to close that GAR themselves. They did so. I asked them to wait a few days before seeking an official close and they gave more than a few. You didn't, it seems, even attempt to address the highlighted problems. as my aunt would say, they pissed in your doll house. But even though pissed in your dollhouse the question becomes about the legitimacy of their content complaints. I view them myself and I see legitimacy. I ask you now if you have viewed them or have do you still see how they pissed in your dollhouse. If you are still seeing how they pissed in your dollhouse then really just have to walk away until you don't see it. You can not be mad and do this work. I've seen you try but it doesn't work out. This is however my opinion of what I've seen.

You now have grounds to go to ARBCOM. On the situation you just took to ANI. I recommend against it. You do have the grounds it seems. But ask you what is necessary for you to calm down and de-escalate. For you to be less emotional right now so that you can take a moment and make a clear decision of the best choice for you? Slow down and think about your next move.

It's never going to be unicorns and sunshine. Every job is important. We have people that just create stubs.Some people make GA's while others break them. There's people that just sit on the noticeboards. There's all kinds of things. Admins aren't more important than newbie editors. Nor are college professors or even Jimbo.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your wisdom, SJP. You're spot-on about tired and worn down. Just wanted you to know the GAN was made in GF based on the responses by Doc James, such as this edit summary. In retrospect, I think the following diff speaks volumes about his sudden interest and timing regarding the Racz biography, [2]. It's even more disheartening that he filed the GAR considering his position as an admin and functionary, and ignored the proper steps to take before doing so. In corporate speak we'd call it a hostile takeover. See the quote at the top of this TP because that's exactly what happened. Sorry, but I don't consider such an influence the perfect approach for biographies or for the project overall, even though certain aspects of it have merit. Certainly I welcomed what few improvements were made regarding sources and compliance with MEDRS. GF collaboration is always welcome and I expect the same in return. I also welcomed what little bit of copyediting and tweaks were needed in the prose but the remainder of what happened was unwarranted and based entirely on POV. Add to that, the PAs and incivility demonstrated by certain editors during the COIN fiasco, ARBCOM, Kombucha (which resulted in an unwarranted 7-day aBan against me by a biased admin), the attack on Racz, AVDUCK and the recent ANI...well, it leaves little to the imagination. The diffs will certainly provide substantive evidence of patterned behavior and motivation. As you correctly assumed above, the thought of ARBCOM entered my mind but I will heed your advice, contingent upon their future behavior and remain cautiously optimistic.

I don't know how closely you've followed the events as they unfolded, particularly here, [3]. Racz was the first article I created with help from Alf.laylah.wa.laylah. You know how our collaboration began at IPT, and while we all lost patience with each other from time to time, I truly appreciated Alf taking the time to understand the points I was trying to make. It all became clear to him when he started investigating the sources and realized the problem. I smile when I think back on those early experiences with you and Alf and how his advice had a calming effect. I miss him. He was patient and understanding but stern. He walked me through the creation of Racz, tweaked the prose as needed, helped me find sources and you both taught me things I needed to know about WP. Perhaps that's why Racz holds special meaning for me as does the Aztec sun on my TP. Alf nominated Racz for DYK, and showed me how to do the next one. When I nominated Racz for GA last year, it was reviewed by one of the best reviewers on WP. Racz has pretty much been stripped of its engaging prose and biographical content since then. In Doc's own words, In English their or boring words like "developed" and "designed" and promotional words like "pioneered" and "innovated". We should always be using the boring ones even if the sources use promotional language. It is mostly fixed aswell.[4] It is now focused on the medical procedures and treatments and as you will witness by comments on the TP, there is still unwarranted resistance for its promotion to GA. I've also studied the council guidelines for project teams and I am quite certain those guidelines are not being followed. It has caused disruption to the project, and while I have no problem keeping snake oil and crazy cures in their place and identified as such, I believe issues arise over NPOV on the opposite end of the spectrum regarding BLPs. There's also the malleability of MEDRS which is sometimes misused at the expense of NPOV. Kombucha is a pretty good example of the latter, and David Gorski is a good example of the double standard shown to BLPs. Atsme^📞📧 18:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)^{added underlined text later today 20:54, 5 August 2015 (UTC)}

Revenge PROD's

Hello. Until the recent ANI-discussion and the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Advocacy ducks our paths have never crossed, neither here on Wikipedia or anywhere else, and you have AFAIK never shown any interest in Wikipedia articles about rare species before, so would you mind explaining why you all of a sudden PRODded 14 well sourced and properly formatted stub articles about rare catfish species that I have created? Claiming that they don't belong on en-WP since species.wikipedia.org exist is IMO not a valid reason, especially not without discussing it with me on my talk page first. Thomas.W ^talk 11:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• ... and now also nominating them for deletion. Thomas.W ^talk 11:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The articles belong in Wikispecies. Actually I do have an interest in rare and endangered fish species. A better option would have been to list all 16 of the rare species since all are of the same genus, Glyptothorax, in a single article, not 16 different articles that are less than stub quality articles taking up unnecessary space when they are nothing more than dictionary entries. They would serve more benefit in Wikispecies which I recommended in the deletion request. Atsme^📞📧 12:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Point me to where it explicitly says we can't have articles about rare and endangered species here on en-WP. The reason they're short is that there is very little information available about those species, other than that they exist, and are rare. Also point me to diffs or other proof for your previously shown interest in rare and endangered fish species, because your actions look very much like trying to get back at me for voicing an opinion that you didn't like. Thomas.W ^talk 12:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Please see WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. All correctly described species are considered inherently notable. I suggest you cease bombing these articles with PRODs.--Elmidae (talk) 12:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Save your arguments for the deletion discussion. My suggestion to you now is to consider merging those 14 dictionary definitions into a single list if you want to keep them in mainspace without being challenged. I did not request an AfD for Glyptothorax_kashmirensis because it actually is a stub. Readers will actually benefit more from having all 14 species listed in a single article. They can grow into stubs from that list. Now please excuse me while I finish my work. Atsme^📞📧 12:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC) ^{added clarification 13:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)}

I cannot see why these species or subspecies are not qualified to be separate stubs. They can of course be mentioned in a main article but even if they only have one ref, that is sufficient for a stub article.--MONGO 18:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a taxobox holder. The fish are all the same genus and the most beneficial thing to do for the sake of readers is add them to wikispecies, and create a list on WP. The same taxobox can be used in the article, up to the point of naming the species - leave that for the list. Was the intention of this author to create articles for 90 some odd species with 90 some odd taxoboxes? That does not qualify under GNG and there's not enough information in each stub to warrant an article. Common sense - organize - think of the reader and why they would come to WP to find a two sentence article with a taxobox about a fish they wanted to learn something about. At least with a list you give them more options all in one organized place. So much for the unwarranted revenge prod. And I get blamed for causing disruption. Please move along and continue your discussion on the TPs of the stubbies your so proud of. Atsme^📞📧 21:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC) ^{strike inappropriate comment}

Atsme, I'm not your enemy. I do not disagree that it would be great to have a featured list of all species in a genus so we can get that overview, but as is true with many lists, they are linked to specific articles that may be very short stubs. What is wrong with that? Take List of hiking trails in Grand Teton National Park...each linked trail has a linked stub article, where the details are slightly expanded. Do you think these stubs should not exist independently? I'm just trying to get your angle on this is all.--MONGO 05:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

MONGO First, I apologize to you for my out of character comment. It arose from frustration and disappointment. I understand your point and agree for the most part. The stub articles you mentioned about the trails are legitimate stubs and can actually be expanded including the addition of more images. The list is quite helpful for readers and actually demonstrates the point I was trying to make about the catfish stubbies. For example, [Glyptothorax chindwinica] - a species of catfish that was first described by Vishwanath and Linthoingambi 2007. Glyptothorax chindwinica is a species in genus Glyptothorax, family Sisoridae and order Siluriformes. IUCN categorise the species as least concern globally. No subspecies are listed in Catalogue of Life. That is the full text of the stub which is not much more than extended prose mirroring the taxobox. As I mentioned before, since all 15 species/subspecies are of the same genus and only one of the stubs is worthy of being classified as a stub, (the rest are definitions), they could have been merged into a single list. Then as more information became available, off-shoot articles could be created. It's actually better for WP because it creates more wikilinks and increases the number of times the name appears in the text which causes it to appear higher up in a Google search. The species I exampled actually does have more information available, [5], so with some time and a little effort exerted toward improving what we create, the project benefits. That less-than-stub sat as is for nearly 11 months. I'm not sure why the author portrayed it as a "rare" catfish when that clearly is not the case. Atsme^📞📧 13:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I would prefer to see your block reduced, so how do we go about making that happen? I see your point but have to say that as an inclusionist, I would have probably voted to keep these articles. Is there still a way we can keep and still have have you make the list article your focus for now?--MONGO 17:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, MONGO. You make a valid point, and your suggestion would certainly make the work much easier than my original approach. I must confess - I tend to be a clutter phobic, or what some refer to anecdotally as OCS (obsessive-compulsive spartanism), [6], but not as it relates to verbosity and I truly am working on the latter. The other issue about reducing the block is a head scratcher for me and I certainly welcome suggestions. If I'm going to apologize for something I've done that was so terrible it warranted a month-long block then I need a reference point (diffs) so I won't do it again and can provide a sincere apology. If the block is about the PROD activity I could certainly admit that I now realize a different approach would have been better (if that truly is the reason for this block), and offer up a sincere apology for creating a bit of a stir over it, but I don't want to use up the appeal process if my apology is based on the wrong reasons, therefore denied. Does that make sense? Atsme^📞📧 18:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

My postings here have been brought up by two editors on my talk page and the gist of what they are telling me is that I'm not helping things. Here is what I have learned on Wikipedia...of you post something at a noticeboard, there is a one in five chance it is going to be resolved to your liking. More often than not, it results in making everyone mad. I know you've been around here awhile, and I thank you for your FA and GA work and elsewhere, but we have to figure out why a half dozen editors have no interest in seeing you unblocked...and feel you need an extended break. Bishonen stated in the ANI thread she supported a three month block...but has since stated that she would not fight your unblocking. In the unlikely event that we can see your block amended, what steps do you think we need to do to get this to happen?--MONGO 22:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Multiple PROD's

Really, Atsme. Don't you see anything wrong with prodding 14 pages created by Thomas.W within a few minutes, and filling User talk:Thomas.W with 14 bulky proposed deletion templates, without discussing the general principle with him first? Bishonen | talk 11:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC).

You asked me to stay off your TP, Bishonen, [7], so why are you here now? The proposals for deletion were made in GF and I will continue doing so regarding the ones I felt need to be deleted and moved to Wikispecies, or possibly merged into a list. They do not warrant being separate articles. I did not tag Glyptothorax_kashmirensis since it is a legitimate stub. What you're doing now - your immediate accusation that I've done something wrong - is why I believe you have a bias against me and this isn't the first time you've made accusations. The things you said about me at ANI demonstrated ill-will toward me [8] and coupled with your remarks on your TP, you need to recuse yourself and please cease further interaction with me. You are not a neutral administrator where I'm concerned and you showing up here now to accuse me yet again further demonstrates my concerns. I am just doing my job here for the reasons I explained to the editor. I do have an interest in rare and endangered fishes - see my user page - and now I am being wrongfully accused for simply doing my job? It doesn't matter where I go or what I do. I have grown weary of the PAs. Atsme^📞📧 12:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

All properly sourced articles about correctly described species (as all of the articles you targeted are) are inherently notable, and belong here, and your PRODs and AfD-nominations were obviously made in bad faith. Your attempts at intimidation might work on editors who are less experienced than me, both on en-WP and in real life, but I can assure you that they do not work on me. Thomas.W ^talk 12:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for persistent and ongoing disruption across many pages and topics. See [9] for a detailed rationale. As for your claim just above that I'm somehow "involved" and can't sanction you because I have supposedly "demonstrated ill-will", I repudiate it. I have given my opinion of your ongoing disruption, that's all, and it's because I view you as disruptive that I'm now blocking you — together with the obvious consensus on ANI for some sort of sanction. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bishonen | talk 12:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Atsme (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This block was retaliatory, unwarranted and punitive. Bishonen clearly holds a grudge against me for the reasons I mentioned above. She told me to stay off her TP, she made unwarranted claims against me at an ANI I filed, she has demonstrated favoritism and double standards, and now this. Ironically, I was blocked because I decided to limit my activity at the articles I actually created and co-authored, WP:AVDUCK and Gabor B. Racz both of which were hijacked by some of the same members involved in this ongoing dispute, and yet they want to accuse me of BF? The ill-will that has been shown toward me is off the scales, and unwarranted. What we're seeing now is a clear case of railroading a GF editor. Bishonen's excuse for blocking me was based in her false allegations about my GF proposal for deletion of 14 articles that don't even qualify as stubs - are all on the same genus of catfish but different species that should be listed in a single article instead of 14 different articles. I didn't even get a chance to finish commenting and doing what I needed to do before I was immediately attacked. It is suggested that the proposer for deletion contact the author, but I never got that far. Furthermore, it is not a requirement - only a suggestion so even though I didn't finish my work, I did nothing that was deserving of a month long block or the attacks that are now ensuing. This requires a serious investigation by ARBCOM. As things stand now the articles I proposed for deletion belong in Wikispecies or as a list on WP - they are barely even definitions. To make matters worse, Alexbrn, jumped in without hesitation knowing full well I was blocked and can't respond, and just filed an ANI to get me site banned, actions which are actually deserving of him being blocked and site banned considering his relentless hounding and false accusations against me. [10]. All of this follows an ANI I filed because of disruption by some of the same team members (this is clearly a group at work which I can prove and will prove at ARBCOM - and perhaps the reason they are so anxious for my site ban). The ANI was closed by Georgewilliamherbert and then Bishonen added [11]. It is clearly retaliatory and unwarranted. It's really very sad. I need a neutral admin to investigate what has just happened because it is clearly unwarranted. It's a travesty when editors are blocked for doing their job and it's all based on false allegations, jumping to conclusions and misapprehension. Atsme^📞📧 13:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I reviewed the situation and as much of the supporting history as was prudent, and there was clear consensus for at least this sanction. Additionally, your unblock request is almost entirely about other people's behavior, whereas examination of your own behavior is appropriate and necessary for any admin to even consider unblocking you. Laser brain (talk) 17:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user is asking that her block be reviewed:

Atsme (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Bishonen, now that I've had a chance to cool off and analyze the things I said to you out of pure frustration and unwarranted distrust, I am duly embarrassed and I hope you will accept my humble apology. I allowed my emotions to compromise my good judgment. JzG (Guy) is often harsh in his presentation but I know he means well, and his words hit home for me. I hope you will forgive me for not AGF and distrusting your motives. The comments I've been reading from both sides of this case - the good, the bad and the ugly - have weighed heavily on me. I've learned a valuable lesson. After my discussion with MONGO, Guy Macon and others on my TP it is clear to me now that I should do whatever it takes to avoid potential disruption. I will keep the lessons I've learned at the forefront of my editing, and will make it a point to force myself to walk away from a potentially disruptive situation. I ask for your leniency regarding this block as I have an exciting collaborative project waiting in the wings that I've been looking forward to working on for a couple of weeks now, and hope you will take that into consideration. Atsme^📞📧 02:08, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]], now that I've had a chance to cool off and analyze the things I said to you out of pure frustration and unwarranted distrust, I am duly embarrassed and I hope you will accept my humble apology. I allowed my emotions to compromise my good judgment. JzG (Guy) is often harsh in his presentation but I know he means well, and his words hit home for me. I hope you will forgive me for not AGF and distrusting your motives. The comments I've been reading from both sides of this case - the good, the bad and the ugly - have weighed heavily on me. I've learned a valuable lesson. After my discussion with [[User:MONGO|MONGO]], [[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] and others on my TP it is clear to me now that I should do whatever it takes to avoid potential disruption. I will keep the lessons I've learned at the forefront of my editing, and will make it a point to force myself to walk away from a potentially disruptive situation. I ask for your leniency regarding this block as I have an exciting collaborative project waiting in the wings that I've been looking forward to working on for a couple of weeks now, and hope you will take that into consideration. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">[[User:Atsme|Atsme]]</font><sup>[[User talk:Atsme |📞]][[Special:EmailUser/Atsme|📧]]</sup> 02:08, 8 August 2015 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]], now that I've had a chance to cool off and analyze the things I said to you out of pure frustration and unwarranted distrust, I am duly embarrassed and I hope you will accept my humble apology. I allowed my emotions to compromise my good judgment. JzG (Guy) is often harsh in his presentation but I know he means well, and his words hit home for me. I hope you will forgive me for not AGF and distrusting your motives. The comments I've been reading from both sides of this case - the good, the bad and the ugly - have weighed heavily on me. I've learned a valuable lesson. After my discussion with [[User:MONGO|MONGO]], [[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] and others on my TP it is clear to me now that I should do whatever it takes to avoid potential disruption. I will keep the lessons I've learned at the forefront of my editing, and will make it a point to force myself to walk away from a potentially disruptive situation. I ask for your leniency regarding this block as I have an exciting collaborative project waiting in the wings that I've been looking forward to working on for a couple of weeks now, and hope you will take that into consideration. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">[[User:Atsme|Atsme]]</font><sup>[[User talk:Atsme |📞]][[Special:EmailUser/Atsme|📧]]</sup> 02:08, 8 August 2015 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]], now that I've had a chance to cool off and analyze the things I said to you out of pure frustration and unwarranted distrust, I am duly embarrassed and I hope you will accept my humble apology. I allowed my emotions to compromise my good judgment. JzG (Guy) is often harsh in his presentation but I know he means well, and his words hit home for me. I hope you will forgive me for not AGF and distrusting your motives. The comments I've been reading from both sides of this case - the good, the bad and the ugly - have weighed heavily on me. I've learned a valuable lesson. After my discussion with [[User:MONGO|MONGO]], [[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] and others on my TP it is clear to me now that I should do whatever it takes to avoid potential disruption. I will keep the lessons I've learned at the forefront of my editing, and will make it a point to force myself to walk away from a potentially disruptive situation. I ask for your leniency regarding this block as I have an exciting collaborative project waiting in the wings that I've been looking forward to working on for a couple of weeks now, and hope you will take that into consideration. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">[[User:Atsme|Atsme]]</font><sup>[[User talk:Atsme |📞]][[Special:EmailUser/Atsme|📧]]</sup> 02:08, 8 August 2015 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Support modification. See my comment here. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Guy Macon. Give her a chance, if she messes up, it's a clear case of WP:ROPE and she can be reblocked, but if we WP:AGF and remember that blocks are not supposed to be punitive, what are we really losing? Nothing, and potentially we gain a productive editor and content creator. GregJackP Boomer! 02:58, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• I empathise with those editors that have commented over at my usertalk page and have I no desire to upset the works here. I do however agree with Guy Macon and GregJackP and hope this block can be reduced to time served. Atsme...you have a lot of editors that will be expecting your best so my advice is to really be careful before you hit save.--MONGO 04:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
• I agree with the above sentiment. In addition I'll point out that blocks are not meant to be punitive, but instead to prevent disruption. Atsme's unblock request differs alot from the prior and the ANI (specifically in the ANI everyone else was the problem and she certainly did nothing at all.) A major long standing issue has been that she allows her emotions to get better of her good judgement. This recognition is to the best of my knowledge a first. This reasonably suggests that the disruption has ended and as such the block is no longer needed.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• The unblock request is personalized with regard to various editors whom Atmse "likes" and is full of vague, empty language ("weighed heavily" means a lot of things). Nothing in the unblock request shows self-recognition about the persistent disruption for which she was actually blocked -- that she has consistently taken the stance that only she is Right, and that any consensus that does not agree with her is a conspiracy of bad-faith editors, and is worth taking up the community's time with at drama boards. Nor any recognition that serially nominating 14 (!) "fish" articles created by exactly one editor, who had happened to oppose her at ANI, was terrible judgement. Calmer, does not mean acknowledgement of past bad behavior nor actual lessons learned, nor less likely to cause future disruption. This block is an opportunity for Atsme to take a step toward in learning what it means to be a Wikipedian. This particular unblock request is not an actual step. Jytdog (talk) 05:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Her mentioning that she has allowed her emotion to get the better of her good judgement was actually a whole lot of self recognition. Remind me of something for a moment, weren't you the editor that recently opened a bad faith COIN case against her? Has she not fallen on her sword enough for you? What do we need an apology?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:32, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

AN/I

I have posted at WP:AIN#Astme redux on matters which concern you. Thanks, Alexbrn (talk) 12:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Block

I'm sorry to see you blocked. I have been trying to avoid that. I would support an unblock if it was coupled with a restriction from Wikipedia space, where you seem to display consistently poor instincts. Guy (Help!) 13:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Guy, it was unwarranted. The irony of it all is that I actually was trying to stay away from the articles I created that were hijacked by the "team members" and I went back to editing fish articles. Ha! My comments above to the author explain my reasons for proposing the deletions. They clearly are warranted and justified but I was attacked before I even had the chance to finish what I started. Swoosh down attack - totally unwarranted and for all the reasons they are falsely accusing me of doing. Sad. Atsme^📞📧 13:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I came here because I was inclined to support (the other) Guy's suggestion to modify the block, but after reading the above I would like to see some indication that you understand why so many people are upset with your behavior and that you will avoid such behavior in the future. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

From the conversation below, it is clear that Atsme does not understand why so many people are upset with their behavior and has zero intention of avoiding such behavior in the future. Support block and suggest a zero-tolerance policy after the current block expires. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Can we adopt a "policy" on an editor's potential future behaviour? Why not just wait a month and see what happens. I suspect that Atsme might be responding in ways today that will be different in a month's time. People have had their pound of flesh - why not leave her alone to consider what has happened.DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Guy Macon, while DrChrissy makes a good point may I ask if you read my discussion above with MONGO [12]? I will also strike through my comments below which I made in frustration of this block. Atsme^📞📧 22:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Based upon the above (and the other comments on this page) I am going to reverse my position and support a modification to a less restrictive topic ban or even no restrictions at all (that's up to an admin to decide). I fully agree with WP:ROPE. If the problems don't recur, then everybody is happy and Atsme will be able to continue improving the encyclopedia. If they do, it takes about three seconds for an admin to reblock -- probably for a longer period.

Nine years ago, I stated editing Wikipedia as an IP. I behaved very badly. An administrator gave me a warning, and then when I responded by acting like a total jerk, calmly explained what I was doing wrong and how to become a productive editor. that encounter turned my wikilife around. I see no good reason why Atsme should not be given the same chance. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:49, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I spoke with Bish and came here to see if you would consider rewording your unblock request. I've been in your position and ended up with an indef block and topic bans in addition to that. Ping me if you are interested, or email me, and I'll be happy to help. GregJackP Boomer! 17:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The unblock request justifies the block. It's amazing how often that happens, but in Atsme's case particularly there is a recurrent theme of everybody else being wrong, everybody else failing to assume good faith, everybody else being obdurate, and if only they'd admit Atsme is right the world would be sweet again.

Atsme surely knows by now about the WP:BOOMERANG. She's been warned more than once for abuse of process to try to gain an advantage in a content dispute. Several times in my personal experience she has continued to assert a specific interpretation of policy as the only possible correct one, in the face of numerous long-standing Wikipedians stating the opposite. The kerfuffle over Gabor B. Racz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is very reminiscent of that over G. Edward Griffin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), with uncritical content being aggressively pushed on the grounds that it makes for a "good" article, which is the canonical opposite of the truth where the ideas in question are not widely supported - we have an absolute mission to challenge bullshit.

I think it may be too late. The disputed essay is the ship on which I think Atsme may go down. It was written as a retaliation against the cabal of MEDRS supporters, asserting the "pharma shill gambit", and I think that Atsme has by now gone into full-on paranoia mode. I have supported Atsme in the past due to content contributions, but reviewing recent actions really undermines that.

Overall, I think Atsme needs the break. I've gone on long Wikibreaks when things get stressful, it helps to get the sense of perspective back. I don't know if this works when the break is enforced, alas. Guy (Help!) 18:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm inclined to believe the attempts to get rid of me now are rooted in the ARBCOM case I filed: [13] and the closing comments, particularly the one by Seraphimblade who said the following: while noting that the concerns raised here, if correct, are legitimate and serious. I will echo the suggestions to seriously consider what has been said here in the future. In the future. It explains the boomerang and the attempts to silence me at the noticeboards. When that didn't work, I guess Bishonen figured the block should do the trick. It didn't matter why she blocked me, it was going to happen regardless. You just don't block editors for RfDs especially when the reasons are valid. So why the block? Well, let's see....

• Was it because I created an essay that some members of project med don't like?
• Was it because I wouldn't oblige Doc James when he tried to force me into admitting I broke the law and committed a copyvio even though it wasn't true?
• Was it because AndyTheGrump said I was "beneath contempt" and he wished I got blocked from editing forever?
• Was it because the Racz article I created and got promoted to GA last year was attacked immediately after my COINoscopy and reduced to garbage by some of the same editors who have repeatedly shown ill will toward me since I created AVDUCK?
• Was it because of the COINoscopy I endured (which resulted in an apology so I won't belabor it)?
• Was it because of the intense disruption by AndyTheGrump who has a history of disruptive editing and who caused all kinds of disruption at AVDUCK and the ANI?
• Was it the unwarranted disruption by JPS who was banned from WP at one time but allowed to return despite his history of disruptive editing and repeated sock puppetry with 6 different user names listed on his user page?
• Was it because the same group of editors refuse to DROPTHESTICK at AVDUCK which caused me to file the ANI?
• Was it because of the unwarranted attacks and false statements made about me by JzG and Bishonen who now want me to apologize for ...... ????? I need a hint, please, because all I'm seeing now is POV_railroading. Are the reasons listed in any of the above?

No wait, I finally get it. It's ME - I'm the bad editor because I create articles, participate in DYK, help get articles promoted to GA and FA, I'm a pending request reviewer, a copy editor, occasionally help at DR, and I try to help newbies understand what steps to take when confronted by the same type of behavior I've been confronted with for damn near 8 months steady. Looks like I'm not a good candidate to advise newbies. I don't believe in AK. I guess the straw that broke the camel's back was my unruliness in trying to get dictionary entries over to the proper venue (Wikispecies) and for suggesting the author of 14 of those entries combine them into a list - one that possibly could have been improved to be a featured list. Of course, I was attacked before I ever got the chance to finish what I started.

But let's assume the worst which seems to be the norm for some - and say Atsme was being retaliatory against an editor she doesn't even know. That has to be it. I'm being accused of picking on that one editor because I had a grudge, but I didn't have a grudge against anyone else, right? Jiminy Cricket - is he/she an admin's son or daughter and that's why the special attention? Whatever the reason it was enough to get me blocked for a month while none of the above behavior against me warranted anything more than a frigging slap with a trout. But I'm the one who should apologize. That way I can come back to WP in a month as a beaten, downtrodden, abused female editor which appears to be a serious systemic bias on WP already. They want me to behave like an abused wife would behave. Yes dear, I'm sorry dear, I didn't mean to overcook the meatballs. I wish you hadn't thrown them against the wall but I realize it was my fault and I will clean it up and make you a better dinner. Please don't beat me with that stick anymore. It's really sad but there it is in a nutshell. Atsme^📞📧 20:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

No, it was because you flatly refuse to accept that any opinion other than yours could possibly be right. I invite you to contemplate the law of holes, and put down your spade with all due dispatch. Guy (Help!) 20:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

What are you talking about, Guy? I don't know what you expect of me. Give me something I can build on - specifics, please. What was I wrong about? The RfDs? Do you want me to say I shouldn't have requested deletion of the dictionary definitions and suggested they be moved to Wikispecies, or to combine them in a list? What? Atsme^📞📧 21:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

My last word on this: Stop. Fucking. Digging. If that does not immediately tell you what to do, then I honestly cannot help. Guy (Help!) 22:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• It appears to me that you have been unjustly blocked, though I have yet to review various walls of text. Hang in there. I believe you to be a good contributor to the 'pedia and that you will get past this current situation. Blessings. Jusdafax 01:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom

I notice in the ANI discussion a proposal has been put forward by Andy the Grump that you should be temporarily unblocked for the purpose of filing an Arbcom Appeal wherein you will only be permitted to write in the ArbCom appeal page. I would advise you against accepting this offer if it is made to you. The reason is that you must be in an emotional state of mind right now. If you do wish to file the ArbCom appeal then it is best to take a one month break, collect all the supporting diffs, and make your appeal to ArbCom in a cool and calm manner. You will have a better chance of success in your ArbCom appeal if you follow this approach.Soham321 (talk) 18:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I just realized this is a block, not a topic ban so appealing to ArbCom after the block period is over would be infructious. If you wish to appeal your block again you will have to admit some error on your part for your appeal to be successful. I think you can agree to the fact that while you continue to believe that the numerous stub type articles on Catfish species should have been merged into a single page you should have discussed this issue with other editors about this and tried to ascertain the consensus (on what seems prima facie to me to be the correct view) before nominating the articles for deletion. Soham321 (talk) 19:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

@Soham321 - You incorrectly characterized AtG's comment. He suggested that Atsme be unblocked so that she could file a case at ArbCom, not an appeal. Atmse can appeal her block to ArbCom at any time without being unblocked by contacting BASC by email. Generally, however, this doesn't occur until several regular unblock requests have been rejected. BMK (talk) 19:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I would advise Atsme not to file a request for a case to ArbCom at all, as she is bound to lose the case, the result of which will likely be a site ban. That's a fairly objective evaluation based on years of following ArbCom cases. The best thing would be for her to use the one month break from Wikipedia to re-evaluate her attitude towards her colleagues on this project, and to return to editing with a much less confrontational attitude. Without that change, this block will simply be followed by others, as her current modus vivendi makes that inevitable. BMK (talk) 19:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Atsme: I'm commenting here because you have previously told me that you have found my advice to be helpful, so perhaps I can be helpful again. I agree completely with what BMK just said. I hope that you will follow that advice. When the block is over, I hope that you will focus your efforts on content, and not on disputes. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Tryptofish I was focusing on content - that's what caused this block. I went back to editing fish articles after being pushed away from the article and essay I created and co-authored. I started to do a little article rating, and was looking into some other stuff I could work on when I found the 14 stubbies (15 actually, I left the valid stub alone) which were not much more than dictionary entries. I mean, really - c'mon - why would I single out an editor I don't know to cause him/her grief? No matter what I do they claim "retaliatory". Excuse me, but I don't have a grudge against that editor (don't hold grudges), and (2) if I was wanting to be retaliatory, I sure as hell wouldn't have picked that editor. There are quite a few others who would have been a much better first choice if I was going to be stupid. I simply believed the stubbies would have been more productive on Wikispecies (all are Genus: Glyptothorax) and if left here, combined into a list. They looked vacated to me - nothing in them but a few sentences - so I used TW save time. It wasn't like I committed some big sin like what was done to me or that I was involved in tendentious editing. I made requests for Pete's sake. This block is clearly retaliatory and punitive. Just read the comments. I'm the one who should have balked at the trout slap considering the hate filled comments that were said about me at the ANI and the fact that my work is being hi-jacked so a group of tendentious editors can change it to their POV. That isn't right and it certainly isn't what WP is all about. They're telling me I have to do things a certain way, but they don't? They can do whatever the hell they please and I get blocked for following PAGs? That's insanity. Atsme^📞📧 21:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

@Atsme - Recently blocked editors are usually given some leeway to let off steam immediately after the block, but if you keep going on in the way you are going, with near-rants and continuations of your earlier arguments, it is more than likely that your access to your talk page will be cut off by an admin. Again, this comes from years of observation, and has nothing to do with "right" and "wrong", just with the norms of Wikipedia. When you are blocked, it is considered that the primary use of your talk page should be to address having the block reversed, not to use it as a platform for polemics. I would suggest that you take a break for a couple of days, and maybe file a new unblock request after you've had a chance to calm down a little and think about what happened. I wouldn't hold out high hopes for an unblock, but a sincere statement of an attempt to change your behavior pattern sometimes works wonders -- if it really is sincere, and is followed up by an active presentation of change. BMK (talk) 21:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't perceive the block as being for content edits, at least not primarily, but for how you reacted when other editors raised issues about it. I'm not seeing other editors hijacking anything, and I think that your seeing them that way is what causes the editing community to become unhappy with you. Let me revise what I said above: When the block is over, I hope that you will focus your efforts on content, and assume good faith if other editors disagree with your content editing – if they continue to disagree with you, just let it go, and don't pursue a dispute with them. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

A few observations. There were at least four Admins who wanted Atsme to be sanctioned in some way or the other in the ANI discussion prior to it being closed with everyone getting a trout. After she got out of that scrape Atsme should have considered herself lucky and should have been cautious when doing any bold editing at least for some time. Secondly, Atsme thinks it was ok to have nominated the fourteen stubs for deletion because they were according to her akin to dictionary meanings. I only partially agree with her. The fourteen stubs Atsme nominated for deletion were different species of Catfish, and in my opinion they should all have been combined into a single WP article (even though WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES says that each species can legitimately have their own WP page). I explained my reasoning for this in the ANI discussion in reply to Thomas W (the creator of the 14 stubs Atsme nominated for deletion): [14] I cannot claim credit for coming up with the idea of merging all the stubs into a single article since Atsme had suggested this before me (when she nominated the articles for deletion).

However, i think it would have been better for Atsme to have discussed the matter with other editors and evaluated consensus before nominating the articles for deletions. On WP, all editors are to be treated as equals irrespective of who is right and wrong and irrespective of how intelligent or knowledgeable you are. This is official WP policy and this needs to be respected. And she should have taken into account the need to be more cautious considering she just got out of an ANI discussion with no sanctions imposed on her. I think if Atsme acknowledges this error of not having evaluated consensus before nominating the stubs for deletion, then the Admin who evaluates her appeal to unblock her should approve it since it must be taken into account that she is a solid contributor to WP in terms of content, and secondly she is a female and there is a paucity of female wikipedians. Soham321 (talk) 22:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Is your change of heart the result of this [15]? I'm sorry if I caused any negative energy to flow your way. My only advice - apologize when you're wrong, defend your honor, and follow your heart. You can't go wrong. Atsme^📞📧 22:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Trust me, it has nothing to do with Jyotdog's note on my talk page. There is no change of heart. I am continuing to support you. Soham321 (talk) 22:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Honestly if you calmed down you could make a reasonable case here in your defense.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I also must caution you as I and others have before about taking it to Arbcom.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, SJP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme (talk • contribs)

Something you need to understand about AndyTheGrump

There are certain editors who have a talent for inspiring comical levels of anger from Wikipedia undesirables, generally POV-pushers and trolls, and as a result of repeated complaints against them by undesirables, develop a teflon coating. The sequence of events goes something like this: Undesirable does something undesirable. Teflon editor swoops in, tells them to go away, and gets an admin to block. Undesirable decides to stop at nothing to get rid of their antagonist; posts at ANI, gets all of their friends to chime in, etc. The regulars on ANI see that the complainant is an undesirable and/or is wrong, invoke WP:BOOMERANG, and the undesirable is forced to give up. When this happens repeatedly with many undesirables, and the teflon user is so frequently correct, the ANI regulars start to assume that any complaint against the attack user is a WP:BOOMERANG, and it becomes pretty much impossible to make anything stick against the attack user even if the complaint happens to be valid. As you have apparently discovered, AndyTheGrump is one of these users; some others are Sitush (at least before CarolMooreDC got the best of him) and JzG.

You've gotten yourself into a fight that you can't win. Whether or not you are correct is totally irrelevant. Accept that and move on. Once you've done so, get yourself an admin account so that you can't be pushed out as easily. Bobby Tables (talk) 18:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Another tactic that seems to have emerged in recent events is that some of Teflon's mates lurk, watching the discussion progress but not posting. Then, if there appears to be something that just might stick to Teflon, or perhaps reinforce a boomerang raised against a Teflon-Mate, they can dive in and hat or close the potentially damaging thread whilst declaring themselves "not involved".DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Do I sense Project Teflon in the making? Actually, the few days I've had to study what's going on, why it happened, and whether or not I can do anything to help make WP a better place --- hold on --- just had a text message. [pause] OMG!!! *LOL* I have to share....

• Incoming: You at home?
• Me: Uh huh - playing on outer.
• Me : peter - damn spell checker
• Me: OMG!!!! It gets worse!!!
• Me: computer!!!! ROTFLMAO
• Incoming: Playing with Peter huh? Ya, blame it on computer, lmao!
• Incoming: Was gonna stop by, I'm on way back from gym? You need more time? Lol

Nuff said. Atsme^📞📧 19:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

First law of holes

"The first law of holes refers to a proverb which states that "if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging". The meaning behind it is that if you find yourself in an untenable position, you should stop and change what you are doing, rather than carrying on and exacerbating the situation."

Seriously. You really need to stop digging. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

So basically you're saying the only difference between a rut and a grave are the dimensions. I get it and I have stopped stopped digging, Guy M, and I thank you for the clarification. Atsme^📞📧 22:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Heh! I like that. And yes, it's essentially true. Guy (Help!) 22:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps some day the community will see me, not with preconceived notions, but for who I am...[16]. (PS:Lana Del Ray blows me away) Atsme^📞📧 00:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

See my comment here. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, sometimes, even when you are the wronged party, you just need to move on and let it go.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

The Devil's Advocate, thank you for that link!!! Now I know what the kids have been singing. *lol* Isn't it amazing how animation has advanced to CGI? I remember struggling with 3D images on an Amiga (Commodore)!! I still have the instruction manuals to remind me of the horrendous rendering times. Just thinking about what we had to do to key graphics live and what those CG boxes cost. Wow!!! Takes me back a ways. Atsme^📞📧 03:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)