User talk:Atama

Hoping for help

Hello, Atama. Does this offer still stand? A dispute has been going on regarding multiple attendance claims for Wrestlemania 23 since mid-December, especially on the talk page of WP:PW. Those opposed to any inclusion originally made incorrect appeals to WP:V and WP:RS and WP:CON, and declared the discussion "closed". That argument failed to carry the day; now they wish to control the wording to reflect their continued dislike of the edit. I have remained civil throughout. However, the most recent message from 3bulletproof16 violates so many different WIkipedia guidelines and policies that further discussion seems pointless. The post is just one of a string that have demonstrated indifference, if not contempt, for Wikipedia policy.

The editors' behavior is unacceptable. But before I proceed to the Incidents board-- which is unlikely to improve either the editors' responsiveness or the situation-- I'd much rather listen to a cooler head.

I've helped edit Wikipedia for almost six years, but I have never previously interacted with any of the other participants in this dispute. However, GaryColemanFan apparently has, because he notes that "Request for Comment has not worked with this group before" I can't speak to the validity or the history of that statement, but after what has occurred, I find his opinion to be plausible.

Any advice or assistance you might be willing to offer would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. 208.120.153.110 (talk) 00:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Chabad on Wikipedia arbitration request

Since you have been kind enough to comment at the unresolved WP:COI case at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/User:Yehoishophot Oliver, you may wish to know that it has now been nominated for arbitration. Feel free to review at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Chabad movement editors and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thank you for your input and patience, IZAK (talk) 09:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the notice, thank you very much. -- Atama頭 18:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello

I dont really have any reason to be comming her but I was wondering. It's been a while since you were promoted to Sysop. In case you did'nt know, I !voted for you :) I was wondering, how's adminship? Do you think that you have been doing a good job at it?--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 01:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I know, and thank you. I was frazzled for a while after the RfA with real life things and never put together a proper RfA spam but I do appreciate (and was surprised by) all the support I received.

I don't know if I've been doing a good job, I have yet to have anyone accuse me of being a bully, corrupt, or a terrible person in any way. Yet. I'm not sure if that's a good thing, since the cliche is that administrators are always under attack from people. To be honest, I don't feel any different than before I got the mop, all that is different is that when I go patrolling expired proposed deletions I don't just endorse them if I agree, I delete them. I've also made a few blocks (uncontroversial so far) but otherwise I haven't been going wild with the tools. I did have an unplanned semi-wikibreak over the holidays and was slow to reply to a few people who sent me messages, and I'm still trying to catch up.

The one thing I've learned in this short time is that adminship really isn't that big of a deal, just like the oft-repeated mantra. At least it hasn't been for me. I do enjoy being able to take a more active role with proposed deletions, though, and also being able to do a little bit more at the conflict of interest noticeboard (a few really obvious speedy deletions and I think one or two username blocks). -- Atama頭 01:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

That's nice to know. At least you have'nt screwed anythnig up! Anyway I just that I'd come by and see how its going. I also came to thanks you for when you stuck up to me during Polargeo's RFA. Thanks.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 01:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, no problem, I generally call them as I see them and I meant what I said. -- Atama頭 01:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration case opens/Chabad movement

Hi Atama: Since you have been involved in the topic of Chabad, this is to let you know that an official arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement. You may wish to add your comments for the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Evidence. The ArbCom asks that evidence be submitted within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Workshop. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 05:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Keepin Busy? :-)

Hey Atama, a quick question (not about keepin busy). I'm trying to help another editor. He is getting himself in some hot water by going around deleting a certain source that he feels is a spam source. He says an Admin told him it was spam and he feels justified. The source appears in many places. [1] I think he would be willing to hand this over to administration but he doesn't know where to go. How should someone handle something like this? Thanking you in advance,-- — Kbob • Talk • 03:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I see that there is already a discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard. And the BLP noticeboard, and ANI. Your friend wouldn't happen to be DegenFarang? Forum-shopping, for one, makes them look pretty bad. This feud with 2005 is also not good. Now, the other person is just as much to blame. My suggestion would be simply for DegenFarang to find something else to do. It's almost like the man who goes to a doctor, and says "my leg hurts when I poke it in this spot", and the doctor just says "stop poking that spot".

By the way, the consensus I see forming about that web site from the various noticeboard discussions is that it's situational. It's neither spam nor a completely reliable source. It shouldn't be relied upon for anything and everything poker-related, but at the same time it shouldn't be removed from every single article. It shouldn't be used for BLPs, but for articles discussing general poker topics it might be okay. Any sort of crusade about it one way or the other isn't productive. -- Atama頭 16:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Ha! Yes I was inquiring on behalf of DegenFarang, looking to diffuse the situation somehow without taking a side and getting between him and 2005. Personally I think the source is OK, so I am not on Degen's "side" of the issue. But, I hate to see an editor self destruct who, at least some of the time, has good intentions and makes some good contribs to Wiki. Anyway thanks for your comments and insights. We'll see how the whole thing shakes out. Cheers!-- — Kbob • Talk • 17:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

History of Terrorism

I feel the only person acting like they own the article is PBS. As for Haberstr have you read the talk page archive? how issues are constantly raised until he loses, then he abandoned the article for a few months and comes back with the exact same issues, In order to push his personal POV. However if you want proof of vandalism then my biggest issue with version would provide it, he placed those tags in the summer yet dated them as march that is clearly vandalism is it not? Sherzo (talk) 19:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

No. Vandalism doesn't mean "doing something wrong". It means deliberately trying to damage the article. What my biggest concern with your editing of the article is that as you declared to me, your only interest in the article is to revert a particular person's edits to it. You're not interested in improving it, or discussing its content, you just don't want a particular person editing it. That does seem like ownership and possibly harassment. As to misdating the tags, that's factually incorrect, the tags came about in April. -- Atama頭 19:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Pinkadelica^♣ 21:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your input

I'm in complete agreement with you. And yes, the article is David Littman (historian). But the templates are still there, though I believe they do not at all belong.

Sorry about raising it on the wrong page. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

You should go back to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive589#User Bowei Huang/A1DF67 (ongoing). I've left a new comment there.

A1DF67 (talk) 03:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments

Thanks for your comments at the COI noticeboard. Regards, PDCook (talk) 18:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm not quite sure what to do about any of the articles you've mentioned yet. I may try to prod a couple, but any that aren't deleted should definitely be cleaned up. -- Atama頭 18:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I already PRODed them a while ago. Both were contested (along with removal of maintenance templates). I listed Alison Davis on AfD. I'm going to look a little harder into Matthew Le Merle to see if it should be listed on AfD as well. Regards, PDCook (talk) 19:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Wikipedia:PLAXICO

I have nominated Wikipedia:PLAXICO (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 19:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

COI

Thanks for your comments, I have taken the article of my watchlist but just got attracted by a AFD comment for a quick look, as regards the coi tagging, I know we usually use that for when people have a direct connection to the person but I felt that it could also be used if someone has an apparent very strong opinion related to the pov that the article is moving towards then this can also come under the coi umbrella, I wanted to draw extra attention to the big changes that were occurring there and now I feel free of any need to defend the subject, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem! And I think that Epeefleche might have been just a bit too defensive in the process too, but no harm done by anyone there. -- Atama頭 20:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Defensive or not, he can not deny his edit history. Off2riorob (talk) 20:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

You deleted an article due to copyright infringment of material in the public domain

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOV-205

You claimed it violated copyright of http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00372983

But all US federal government works are in the public domain (common knowledge in IP circles), and that is easily verified by following the copyright link on the page you accused it of copyright infringement upon:

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/copyright.html

"Government information at NLM Web sites is in the public domain. Public domain information may be freely distributed and copied"

It seems that you're trying to be helpful, but maybe a basic check of the copyright terms should be in your checking process when you move to delete articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.102.46.21 (talk) 20:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I may have made a mistake here. It says that information was provided by Novelos Therapeutics, but as you said everything there is released into the public domain. I'll restore it, but seeing as the article was created by a now-blocked editor who was promoting the manufacturer and the article itself fails our inclusion guidelines I will see if anyone objects to a proposed deletion. -- Atama頭 20:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Mediation for Longevity Myths

Mediation at Longevity myths

Hello Ryoung122, I just wanted you to know that I've taken the mediation case requested here, and I'm offering my help as a mediator to help resolve issues at the article, specifically whether or not the "myth" classification applies to content in the article. As a mediator, I don't intend to make a decision myself, nor is it my desire to give personal opinions on who is right or wrong, but I'd like to help the two of you come to a mutually-accepted compromise. If you feel that mediation is required at the article, and are interested in participating, please let me know. Thank you. -- Atama頭 20:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Greetings,

Let me start by welcoming you to the discussion. However, I believe that this dispute is one of science versus religion. Science relies on facts and evidence; religion is based on beliefs. As such, I don't hold out a lot of hope for reaching a "mutually-accepted compromise."Ryoung122 01:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, and to be honest, the issue seems stale as it looks like there hasn't been any real debate since June of last year. JJB also seems to be on a Wikibreak. I'll wait a few more days in the unlikely chance that he responds and then I'll close the mediation request as "stale". Tanks for your response! -- Atama頭 18:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal

After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

• gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and

• ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

RfA

Well, I was using that as a hypothetical to stress the point. Realistically speaking, I'm not going to close an AfD, but even if for some reason I did, I'd do so in the manner broadly accepted by the community. I was worried that some people would see that hypothetical as "wiggle room", but I figured it was more important to stress that I would adhere to the broader consensus. Also, I was worried that stating flatly that I would never ever ever close an AfD would be used against me, because in the past I've been opposed on the grounds that I'd be a "partial admin", so I thought it wiser to just say: I'm not going to close an AfD, but even if under some weird circumstance I did, I would do so in an uncontroversial manner and nobody would even care. I'm sure you can see how difficult it is to "thread the needle" on this AfD issue—but if you like, I will personally promise you that I won't close an AfD ever ever ever. Everyking (talk) 00:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll think it over and see how the discussion continues, and look at your last RfA, but I'm definitely leaning support. I appreciate your clarification. -- Atama頭 00:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Highgrove Luxury Condominiums

You have previously written me stating that my addition to the Highgrove Luxury Condominiums page, regarding the amenities was written too much like a promotion. I was wondering if you could assist me in creating an "Amenities" section which you would deem unbiased. I am asking because the amenities at Highgrove seem to be one of a kind not only in the town but also in the state. No other buildings provide private elevators to each residence, a pool with retractable ceiling, a private climate-controlled wine cellar designed by Wine Enthusiast, or a screening room. Because they are so unique I believe they do deserve to be represented in the article. Please help if you can. Thanks. Todtanis (talk) 20:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, I will note that for the most part you've done a very good job of finding references for articles and building up content in a positive way. I'd be very happy to help you out, and you make a very good point. The key to getting this info into the article without anyone objecting is to try to word things in a neutral manner, and to reference it. Since you're obviously the expert on these matters, do you happen to know of a reference for this info? If we can verify it with a reliable source, it would definitely warrant inclusion in the article, especially if these are unique features. Thanks for dropping me a line! -- Atama頭 21:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much for agreeing to help. This Elite Traveler Article provides all of these amenities in a list form, as does this article from The 203 Magazine. This New York Times Article has slightly more detail about the private elevators for the residences, and the elevators for the parking garage both of which are firsts in the state. Todtanis (talk) 22:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

That's perfect. I'll work on rewriting the text you had added before and use those references. Let me see what I can come up with shortly. -- Atama頭 22:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I have added a WP:COI message on User:Todtanis' talk page. I would be happier if he was upfront about his special interest (preferably on his user page) in this article before attempting to recruit us as proxies for this article. All the links being provided are on their official websiteAnnette46 (talk) 15:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. But while the COI is of course something to keep in mind, the guideline itself states, "In a few cases, outside interests coincide with Wikipedia’s interests." The specific example used in the guideline is removing unsourced defamatory material. Another example that I've run into is when the article subject is notable and the editor with a COI has knowledge that can help to develop the article, which is the case with Highgrove. If neutral editors can vouch for the way the information is presented and work to keep the language from becoming promotional, the COI itself shouldn't present a problem. That's why the guideline specifically allows for editors with conflicts of interest to participate in talk page discussions. Highgrove has survived an AfD and the community wants the article around, so why not work with Tod to develop it?

Also, it has been a couple of days and I haven't made the changes I had said I would. I still intend to, but I've been at a bit of a loss as to how to include the material without making the article look like an advertisement. I'm still trying to figure that out. -- Atama頭 16:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Gibraltar an idea

An idea I wanted to float by you. I doubt that a topic ban is the answer because the editors disrupting the article will simply resort to sock puppetry. So to stop the disruption:

1. Indefinitely semi-protect the articles to stop IP disruption.
2. Regularly do sock puppet checks on any editors who edit the article.
3. Introduce a red card system, where any mention of nationalism or ad hominem attacks gets a yellow card, then a red card leading to a block. With an escalating scale of blocks, 24 hrs, 48hrs etc.

It would need a referee and you have the respect of all editors to be independent, so I wondered if you would be prepared to countenance taking on the role. Of course everyone would have to agree. Is this a workable suggestion? Justin talk 10:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the ideas Justin. These situations are always tough on Wikipedia, I think that possibly the only articles that are more contentious than articles about nations are the Global Warming articles. I'll address them one at a time.

1. It's possible, semi-protection will stop both IPs and newly-created accounts from editing the main page. I'll look over the page history to see if I can justify it. Keep in mind that semi-protection won't stop anyone from participating on the talk page. Talk pages can be semi-protected, but that only happens in the most extreme cases because talk pages are generally considered "sanctuaries" where anyone but banned editors can give their input. If you intend for the talk page to be semi-protected that's extremely unlikely.

2. Sockpuppets need to be checked by checkusers, who require evidence before they'll take the time to do it. I don't think there's any chance of an automatic checkuser for anyone who participates, that's totally unprecedented. You have to take it one person at a time, even articles like Lyndon LaRouche that have sockpuppets almost constantly aren't given that sort of treatment.

3 A system like you propose is a sanction, most commonly referred to as "article probation". Certain articles, or types of articles, are given special editing rules such as only allowing one revert per day, or not making ad hominem attacks (as you propose) with generally 1 warning followed by an escalated series of blocks. It works exactly as you propose, but it's beyond the ability of a single person to do. Just like bans, these sanctions can only be put into place by a community consensus or the Arbitration Committee. I'd support your idea, but if I were to act on it I'm sure that any blocks I put into place would be overturned and I'd be warned. Administrators really don't get more authority than other editors, we can enforce rules but can't make them up.

This doesn't mean that nothing can be done. As I said before, the Arbitration Committee can issue sanctions. Gibraltar articles have been through different dispute resolution steps already (including RFC and mediation), and if those steps don't end up eventually settling things down, ArbCom will take the case. Keep in mind that it can take months before they make a decision, and such a decision could result in bad things happening to affected editors (such as topic bans or even being blocked from Wikipedia) but it might eventually be the only way to fix things. -- Atama頭 22:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually I had it in mind to be a voluntary code of conduct, where the protagonists involved would agree to the terms in order to avoid arbcom and ultimately the sanctions that will result. Some will be undeserved but I would be prepared to support it. IF we agree is there a problem? Justin talk 22:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Everyone can agree to whatever standards you like, and it can be very helpful to do so. But nobody can enforce it at this point, even if the people involved agree to it. A community sanction has to be open to a wider audience, such as WP:AN or WP:ANI. For an example of what a sanction looks like, look at Obama article probation which came about as a result of this discussion. I believe this was the last step in a long, drawn-out dispute between a very large number of editors. I don't know if the Gibraltar articles have reached that point yet, but maybe they have, there have been quite a few ANI discussions already (I think most revolved around Gibnews and Ecemaml in particular). Honestly, I've never proposed a sanction before and judging from what I see at WP:GS they're pretty rare (there are less than 40 of them for all of Wikipedia, and some of the sanctions listed are duplicates) so I'm not completely sure how to go about it. Probably just suggest on ANI exactly what you suggested to me and ask the community to approve or disapprove. Again, though, this is somewhat new to me so don't take my word as gold for this process. I'm sure if this isn't really how to do it, someone will correct you without biting your head off. -- Atama頭 23:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I gave it a try and the only comment I've got so far it was the wrong place! Please feel free to add your 2c. Regards, Justin talk 23:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

That's my fault, I should have been more specific. I should have clarified that you should have added that to one of the two existing topics on ANI. I've moved it for you. -- Atama頭 00:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Need Your Help

Dear Atama, you are the third senior I am asking this. How do you suggest I should deal with a user called Rapido and his accusations of personal attacks when out of good faith I want him to understand why he is being problematic. He has misquoted everything I say at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AN/I#WP:AOBF_issue_with_IP_address_94.193.135.142 and I am afraid by engaging and defending my self against his accussations, seems to give him more substance to create false views. He will quote this too out of context. Can you help? Suggest what I should do? I'm not very experienced here, and would like to know what I can do? I have tried to make friends in his talk page to resolve our dispute, but no reply. --94.193.135.142 (talk) 21:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The Original edit war dispute: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:94.193.135.142_reported_by_User:Rapido_.28Result:_24h.29

This has gone to WP:AN/I, altho' the personal attacks and accusations of bad faith have (as you can see) continued. Rapido (talk) 21:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It will take me some time to look over everything, but I'll dig into this and see what help I can offer. -- Atama頭 21:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Self-government

Talk:Gibraltar#RfC:_Self-government Guy (Help!) 11:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Chapman Waste Disposal

You deleted Chapman Waste Disposal as an expired prod. Another editor recreated the article, but without some of the sources I had added, and someone else nominated it for AfD. Could you please restore the history of the article? - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Nationality Profiling

Hi, Atama. At this point, I hope you'll be aware that I am really bothered by the constant labeling (concerning nationality) some editors have been enduring for months. I started an AN/I thread a few days ago to request for external help, as the various complaints made to the involved users were being ignored day after day. From what I understood of your comments in the aforesaid noticeboard's thread, you believe as well that to describe one person as citizen of a State which is part in a discussed dispute is very unhelpful (1 and 2 led me to that conclusion, sorry if I misunderstood something).

I turn to you because even when I've previously adressed directly the involved editors, I've agreed to a moratorium under the premise of avoiding further personal attacks, and I've posted a complaint in the AN/I twice already, yet I am still being aggravated with such comments. So I've got nothing left to do. Could you, please, help me? This has nothing to do with the content of any dispute. It's a persistent breach of elementary civility rules. It is very disruptive for any debate as well, in my opinion. Thanks in advance. Cremallera (talk) 12:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't you think this is getting a tadge silly, this is inventing reasons to complain now. Justin talk 12:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Justin. I was going to leave a notice on your talk page, but you've somehow found your way to here. Alright then. Cremallera (talk) 12:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Atama. I'm afraid I need an answer, whichever it may be, because at this point I don't really know how I should react to this kind of comments and tone (1, 2). If this attitude is acceptable, then I rest my case. I might have been overly susceptible, but I don't really see the point in volunteering through this perennially. Cheers. Cremallera (talk) 18:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't really see a problem with those diffs. All of those comments are about the content, not the editors. The ad hominem identification of editors as belonging to one nationality or another is what has been causing problems with the Gibraltar articles (and happens on almost every nation article) but talking about nationalities within the content of the article itself is fine. That's all that I see Justin doing in each diff you provided. Saying that Ecemaml is giving a Spanish POV as a Spaniard is wrong, saying that a reference is from a Spaniard may or may not be wrong depending on the circumstances. Civil debate about the content and references is what we want on a discussion page, not debates over what country an editor is from. If it gets to the point where people reject a reference only because it's author is from a particular nation, that's a real problem. But I don't see behavior that extreme from those diffs. -- Atama頭 22:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks, Atama. Cremallera (talk) 23:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to add, if I did see Justin profiling other editors I'd be very disappointed, as he has been the one pushing to enforce a moratorium on that kind of behavior. At first I thought that's what was in those diffs but I had to give them a second look. I sympathize with the troubles going on, but unfortunately it's still mostly a content dispute and I can't enforce anything without a community sanction or ArbCom ruling (as I've said above in another section on this page, talking to Justin). -- Atama頭 23:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

You know I just took this to be reporting to an admin in order to make trouble, yes I know I should assume good faith but I've already had a number of false allegations made already. You might care to drop by and have a look at who is rejecting sources because they're Gibraltarian. Justin talk 00:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

COI

Hi, I was about to post the following:

I need to ammend my comments. The outing policy is actually pretty specific and stringent, and User:Atama's comments make more sense to me now that I've reviewed that policy again (thanks for bringing that specific policy to our attention, Atama, sorry for my misfire.) Standing by my statement "we should not worry so much about COI/Sock as with the inappropriateness of the edits themselves", and recalling again Atama's statement that "Justice2day is a single-purpose account and is editing in a promotional manner”, User:Justice2day has no reason to celebrate.

May we please replace your last edit with this apology? Thanks.--96.233.40.199 (talk) 21:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

You got it. :) Thanks for your comment. -- Atama頭 21:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I placed my comments on the page with a foreword. If you want to remove your comments and my forward so that my retraction follows my original statment that might make the "conversation flow better" but it's not a big matter. Thanks again, and sorry again for not concentrating on the specifics of the WP:OUT policy. --96.233.40.199 (talk) 21:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem, it's actually a fine line to walk sometimes. Talking about an editor's identity is fine if you have on-wiki evidence (the editor admits to it, or signs a post with their real name, or picks a user name that matches the person's name, etc.). If you guess based on an editor's habits, or use off-wiki info to verify (their MySpace page shows they drive a red Ferrari and their user name is RedFerrari) then that goes against our policies and is treated seriously. In this case I don't think people have flaunted the policy, they just were unaware of it or didn't consider it (although in Brangifer's case, that's doubtful, since they link to the policy at the top of their talk page and ask people to not "out" them, ironically enough). -- Atama頭 22:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)